Answered: SG9 & Descoring

[anon50541363]

Ok, ok, we all knew this question was coming so it may as well come from someone with a decent amount of … lets say experience with asking tricky Q&A’s. Rule SG9 has come under scrutiny because everyone here wants to descore, or at least wants to understand how one might descore in order to plan for the upcoming season.

For completeness I will quote the rule in question:

<SG9> Robots may not intentionally grasp, grapple or attach to any Field Elements with the exception of the Bar. Strategies with mechanisms that react against multiple sides of a field element in an effort to **latch **onto said field element are prohibited. (See figures 8-10) The intent of this rule is to prevent teams from both unintentionally damaging the field, and from **anchoring **themselves to the field. Special attention will be paid to any teams interacting with the Hanging Structure. Violations of this rule will result in a Disqualification.

SG9 also includes the following diagram:

http://polynomic3d.com/user/smith/SG9.PNG

In most cases this diagram makes it very clear, because most field elements are treated like solid objects. Very few have exposed caps like the goals do. So I will be presenting a series of images to aid in this Q&A.

To make things clear, this entire question is soaked in the context that the team in question is attempting to descore and is not intentionally attempting to anchor themselves to the field. Assume that the following actions take place in a timely manner (less than 10 seconds) and on their own pose no risk to the field.

In each case, what I am asking is if the following is legal, it is understood that time is a factor. This is important because these procedures left for an extended amount of time are all considered anchoring and SG9 is pretty clear about that. Again, lets assume that from beginning to end the procedure takes less than 10 seconds.

http://polynomic3d.com/user/smith/case1.png

Case #1: Part of the robot reaches into the goal but is not touching any of the edges of the goal.

http://polynomic3d.com/user/smith/case2.png

Case #2: Part of the robot reaches into the goal and may be touching less than half of the edges.

http://polynomic3d.com/user/smith/case3.png

Case #3: Part of the robot reaches into the goal and may be touching grater than half of the edges.

http://polynomic3d.com/user/smith/case4.png

Case #4: Part of the robot reaches into the goal, the robot may be touching any / all edges of the goal.

Finally if an opposing robot decides to push, ram, or otherwise rip the robot in question off the goal while that robot is engaging in a descoring maneuver that involves reaching into the goal, this both poses a risk to the descoring bot and the field. As such, the opposing robot may be in violation of G11:

<G11> 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.

But the descoring robot may also have been in violation of S1:

<S1> If at any time the Robot operation or team actions are deemed unsafe or have damaged the Field Elements or Scoring Objects, by the determination of the referees, the offending team may be Disqualified. The Robot will require re-inspection before it may again take the field.

It is my opinion and understanding that in this case, the second clause of G11 will take precedence:

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.

That is to say if a blue bot is descoring, and a red bot pushes him such that the field, or the blue bot is damaged, the refs are inclined to err in favor of the blue bot and the red bot will must likely either be disabled or DQ’d?

Thanks again Karthik, sorry for another long one. -Cody

[Karthik]

@cody

Case #1: Part of the robot reaches into the goal but is not touching any of the edges of the goal.

Case #2: Part of the robot reaches into the goal and may be touching less than half of the edges.

Case #3: Part of the robot reaches into the goal and may be touching grater than half of the edges.

Case #4: Part of the robot reaches into the goal, the robot may be touching any / all edges of the goal.

All four depicted cases are not considered to be violations of <SG9>. Teams are permitted to briefly enter the Goals for the purposes of removing Scoring Objects. However, teams who choose to do so are responsible for any damage to the field that is caused as a result.

@cody

Finally if an opposing robot decides to push, ram, or otherwise rip the robot in question off the goal while that robot is engaging in a descoring maneuver that involves reaching into the goal, this both poses a risk to the descoring bot and the field. As such, the opposing robot may be in violation of G11:

But the descoring robot may also have been in violation of S1:

It is my opinion and understanding that in this case, the second clause of G11 will take precedence:

That is to say if a blue bot is descoring, and a red bot pushes him such that the field, or the blue bot is damaged, the refs are inclined to err in favor of the blue bot and the red bot will must likely either be disabled or DQ’d?

No, this is an incorrect assessment. The Blue Robot put itself in a position where damage could occur, thus they are responsible for any damage that is caused as a result of their interaction with the field.

[anon50541363]

@Karthik

The Blue Robot put itself in a position where damage could occur, thus they are responsible for any damage that is caused as a result of their interaction with the field.

Ohh snap. Very interesting, thanks again Karthik!

[Karthik]

@cody

Ohh snap. Very interesting, thanks again Karthik!

You’re welcome.