Answered: SG6a Seeming Contradictions Between Rulings

[Highwayman]

Hi Karthik,

Hopefully you can remedy some of these seeming contradictions between rulings regarding SG6a.

This ruling from [Answered: SG6a Expected Contact vs. Restrictive Contact](Answered: SG6a Expected Contact vs. Restrictive Contact)

@@Highwayman

Is it legal for a robot with an arm to intentionally block another robot with a lift from scoring by driving up to the fence and holding their arm over the fence, preventing their opponents from driving all the way up to the fence without outmaneuvering the blocking robot (similar to the defensive strategies commonly employed in Sack Attack and Toss Up)?

@@karthik

No, this is not legal. If you want to do this, you need to stay on your side of the fence.

seems contradictory with (also from the same thread)

@@karthik

Things that are allowed:
- Teams pushing back and forth while in the process of scoring and blocking over the fence

I’m not sure what the difference is because pushing back and forth in order to block scoring over the fence seems like what I was trying to describe, so perhaps you can shed some light on what the difference is or where the confusion lies.

Also, this ruling from Answered: Additional Clarification of “SG6a Expected Contact vs. Restrictive Contact”

@@kmmohn

Scenario #2: What about the same device, poked through the fence (without touching anything on the opponent’s side other than a scoring element), but it is being used to push a scoring object from the near zone to the far zone on the opponent’s side. It is not intentionally blocking the opponents movement, but will nevertheless be in the opponent’s way while the pushing action is taking place if the opponent decides to drive into the mechanism.

@@Karthik

We would expect that a team would deploy this device while in the process of Scoring, and then retract it afterwards. This type of incidental contact in the process of scoring would not be penalized.

seems to contradict

@@Highwayman

For example, since wallbots on the other side of the fence are illegal, does this mean that pushing stars on the other side of the fence and protecting them with a cage around your bulldozer is also illegal since it prevents your opponents from getting to the stars?

@@karthik

It becomes illegal once your opponent drives to drive through your cage. You’ve now restricted their movement while being on their side of the fence.

In these last two cases these mechanisms were directly attached to an offensive robot and being used in the process of scoring, so I’m not sure what the key difference between them was.

Also, you recently said in Answered: Application of SG6a

@@karthik

Basically, the intent of <SG6a> is to make sure that teams are not reaching over to the other side of the field to pin/trap/grab their opponents. Contact over the fence is expected as teams battle to dump/block.

but none of the three situations described in the above linked [Answered: SG6a Expected Contact vs. Restrictive Contact](Answered: SG6a Expected Contact vs. Restrictive Contact) Q&A involved any pinning, trapping, or grabbing and they were all ruled illegal, so it seems that the intent of SG6a does go beyond these three things, or otherwise perhaps this Q&A should be changed.

[Karthik]

The following updated Q&A’s address these contradictions.

https://vexforum.com/t/competition-port/16864/1
https://vexforum.com/t/answered-additional-clarification-of-sg6a-expected-contact-vs-restrictive-contact/35533/1

Simply put, you can reach over to the other side of the field, provided that you’re not pinning/trapping/grabbing an opposing Robot.