Answered: Must "egregious" violations always be intentional?

Can a robot’s action be ruled as “egregious” even if the action is determined to be unintentional?

For an example, with 45 seconds left in a match, a blue alliance robot has a mechanical failure and unintentionally drives into and pushes back a red alliance robot who is halfway into the red alliance loading zone. Due to the mechanical failure the blue alliance robot is unable to withdraw from contacting the red robot and remains there for the duration of the match. The red alliance robot is still able to shoot into the low goal (at least half of it’s driver control loads still available), but is unable to maneuver to shoot to the high goal. Neither Red Alliance robot is equipped to lift another robot. Match ends Red 54, Blue 73. First match of the event so no warnings have been issued.

Are we able to use a first warning in this situation?

Should only one single warning be given for this violation? or do we warn the team every 5 seconds they don’t remove themselves from the loading zone and then disqualify them at the end of the match?

Robots may not enter the opposing Alliance’s Loading Zone at any time during the Match. Minor violations of this rule that do not affect the match will result in a warning. Egregious (match affecting) offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the head referee’s discretion.

Robots may not be in the opposing Alliance’s Climbing Zone during the last thirty seconds (0:30) of the Match. Furthermore, during the period, Robots may not contact an opposing Robot that is contacting a partner Robot that is fully within the volume of the Climbing Zone.

Yes, absolutely. Unless the rule specifically calls out an intentional violation, it is not required for an offense to be intentional to be considered egregious.

This should be a disqualification on the blue alliance for a Match affecting violations of <SG7>.