Answered: Potential defense against a cage bot

[blatwell]

Potential defense against the cage bot. How should this be ruled?

It is clear from prior rules that if a bot is employing primarily defensive strategies like a cage to control the opposing team’s mobile goals, they need to withstand extraordinary counter measures that would otherwise be ruled a violation.

Assuming a robot has a mobile goal caged (which we know is legal from other Q&A answers) and the opposing team is trying to get the mobile goal out of the cage, and while doing so, accidentally pushes the mobile goal into the opposing alliance score zone. (Red alliance has blue mogo in cage. Blue alliance pushes blue mogo that is caged into red score zone by accident while trying to free it from the cage). Assume all these facts are clear and everyone is in agreement to the above set of facts.

1. Is this still a violation by the blue alliance for pushing the blue mogo into the red scoring zone?
2. Does this change if the red alliance robot is also pushed into the red starting bar while it still has the mogo caged and the blue alliance robot is making contact with the red alliance robot?
3. Does the red alliance robot have a responsibility to move the blue mobile goal out of its score zone even if there is no question as to who pushed it there?
4. Does the red alliance have to give up its defense and allow the blue alliance access to the mogo once the blue alliance has pushed the blue mobile goal into the red scoring zone?

One additional question with a slightly different scenario. Assume a blue alliance robot has accidentally pushed a blue mobile goal into the red score zone. Assume the red robot is not a cage bot. Does the red robot have to give the blue robot access to remove the blue mogo (making it easier for the blue alliance to score its mogo) or can they still play defense trying to keep the blue alliance from scoring its mobile goal?

The questions come down to this. Is there a potential reward for violating the rule by pushing a defended mobile goal into the opposing alliance score zone so that the opposing alliance must allow you to come in and get it making it easier to score the mobile goal?

[VEX_GDC]

In the future, please quote the applicable rules you are attempting to clarify. It sounds like you’re referring to a combination of the following rules:

<SG10> Robots may not contact the opposing Alliance’s 10 Point Zone or 20 Point Zone.

a. Robots may not contact an opposing Robot that is contacting opposing Robot’s 10 Point Zone, 20 Point Zone, or Starting Bar.

Minor violations of this rule that do not affect the Match will result in a warning. Match Affecting offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the Head Referee’s discretion.

<SG11> Robots may not put a Mobile Goal in an opposite Goal Zone. (i.e. A Robot, regardless of Alliance, cannot put a red Mobile Goal in a blue Goal Zone or a blue Mobile Goal in a red Goal Zone.) Minor violations of this rule that do not affect the Match will result in a warning. Match Affecting offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the Head Referee’s discretion.

<G13> Intentional strategies causing an opponent to violate a rule are not permitted, and will not result in an infraction on the opposing alliance. Minor violations of this rule that do not affect the Match will result in a warning. Match Affecting offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the Head Referee’s discretion.

<G12> Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or Entanglement of Robots are not part of the ethos of the VEX Robotics Competition and are not allowed. However, VEX Robotics Competition In the Zone is an interactive game. Some incidental tipping, Entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal game play. If the tipping, Entanglement, or damage is ruled to be intentional or egregious, the offending Team may be disqualified from that Match. Repeated offenses could result in a Team being Disqualified from the remainder of the competition.

VEX Robotics Competition In the Zone is intended to be an offensive game. Teams that partake in solely defensive strategies will undergo extra scrutiny in regard to . In the case where referees are forced to make a judgment call on interaction between a defensive and offensive Robot, the referees will err on the side of the offensive Robot.

A Team is responsible for the actions of its Robot at all times, including the Autonomous Period. This goes for Teams that are driving recklessly and potentially causing damage, but also goes for Teams that drive around with a small wheel base. A Team should design its Robot such that it is not easily tipped over or damaged by minor contact.

The hypothetical scenario laid out in your question is very context-dependent on any number of factors in the Match, such as previous warnings, how the two Robots interact once <SG11> has been violated, if anything was Match Affecting or not, etc. As such, it is impossible to provide a blanket ruling - the best we can offer is some general interpretations and guidance.

In general, if a Robot forces an opponent to violate <SG11> or <SG10a>, it could be considered a <G13> violation.

However, due to <G12>, teams should exercise caution when attempting a defensive strategy that could put them in a position which violates <SG10> or <SG11>. If an offensive Robot is attempting an offensive action (e.g. attempting to retrieve their Mobile Goal), and not just drawing a penalty, then the <SG11> / <SG10> violation would be the fault of the defensive robot.

If any Robot holds a Mobile Goal in an opposite Goal Zone, actively restricting it from being removed, then that action could be considered its own <SG11> violation, regardless of which alliance moved it there.