Answered: SG14: Repeated momentary violations

[B-Kinney]

According to <SG14>:

Once the Match begins, Robots may expand, but no horizontal dimension can exceed 36” (914.4 mm) at any point during the Match.

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.

And according to the answer to “<SG14> clarify when a robot has fallen over”:

If, upon being tipped, the extension is ruled by the referee to not be Match Affecting, then it would be considered a minor violation and a warning. If it is ruled by the referee to be Match Affecting, then it would be considered a violation and a Disqualification.

According to this thread, someone said at the EP Summit (on day two)* that:

having an arm that momentarily goes a little beyond 36" (repeatedly?) would be fine under the match affecting verbage

(Emphasis mine.)

I understand that decisions on the following scenarios may be up to the referee, but if a general ruling would be appropriate to make:

Suppose a robot raised its arm in such a way that it momentarily tipped back, causing one horizontal dimension to exceed 36 inches for a split-second.

Assuming the tipping was not match-affecting, would the robot eventually be disqualified for doing this:
A) Once in a tournament? (I assume this would result in a single warning at most.)
B) Several times in a tournament, but no more than once in any given match?
C) Once per match?
D) Once per match most of the time, but several times in one match on at least one occasion?
E) Several times in every match?
F) For any of these questions, would it make a difference if the action was clearly accidental?

An example of how a robot could tip over in this manner is below (taken from about the 34 second mark of this video), although the robot in the photo seems to remain within the size limit throughout.

Thank you for your time.

*The original video referenced by the statement I quoted is no longer available, and I have not found any other copies of that portion of the video.

The statement seems to have been made relatively early in the session on Wednesday, possibly during the “Opening Session: VRC-In the Zone”.

EDIT: A quote from a Q&A answer was added below the quote from SG14.

[VEX_GDC]

It is impossible to provide a blanket ruling on a hypothetical robot design and/or hypothetical match scenarios. You are correct in guessing that this decision would be at the discretion of the referee and inspector at an event. This question sounds like an expansion of the following portion of SG14, which is standard verbiage used in many VRC rules:

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.

If it is a minor violation, then the referee should provide a warning. A “minor violation”, in the context of this rule, could be interpreted as one that is temporary, unintentional, or one that did not provide any strategic advantage in the match. This would be the answer to questions A and F.

Once a team has received multiple warnings, it is then at the Head Referee’s discretion whether they feel the violations have warranted a Disqualification or not. We cannot provide an absolute, comprehensive outline beyond this guideline. “Multiple warnings” does extend beyond a single match, and Head Referees are advised to log warnings as they occur to track them across a tournament. This is the answer to questions B-E.

To avoid confusion or unnecessary conflict with your inspectors and referees, we would advise teams to bear this restriction in mind when designing their robots.