Answered: Some <S1> questions

[Oliver_W]

Hi Karthik,

First off, thanks for the very quick response time to Q+A threads lately. Your dedication hasn’t gone unnoticed.

I have three questions about <S1>, one of which is a simple clarification and two of which are about what seem to be extensions of the rule established by past Q+A:

@Manual

<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.

Question 1: What is meant by “unsafe”? Does it apply exclusively to things that are unsafe to humans, or does it also apply to things that are unsafe to property (robots, field elements, scoring objects)?

Question 2: In this Q+A thread from June, you used the words “attempt to damage the field” in reference to <S1>. Specifically, you said:

@Karthik

@Karthik

We’ve noticed that a Large Ball which is only inflated to 15.5" can be pushed under the Barrier if we ram it really hard. Is this a legal maneuver?

No, this is not legal. Any attempts to push or wedge an inflated Large Ball under the Barrier would be seen as unsafe and an attempt to damage the field, and thus a violation of <S1>, which is quoted below for your convenience.

The problem being, *attempts *to damage the field are not prohibited under <S1>. To violate <S1> a robot has to *actually *damage the field (or be “unsafe”).

So the question is: Was this Q+A intended to make attempts to damage the field illegal, or was this an oversight? Should referees be evaluating intent when assessing potential <S1> violations?

Question 3: In another Q+A thread, you said:

@Karthik

@Corona_Panthers

Does it stay on the field with the remote shut off?

This should only happen if the team has earned a Disablement for violating <S1>, <S2>, or <SG6>. A Disqualification does not necessitate a Disablement.

The only rules that allow for disablement in the manual are <S2> and <SG6> (though allowing them under <S1> seems sensible). If it was your intention to allow disablements under <S1>, could you please clarify when they should be used?

Sorry if these questions come across as nitpicky. As you’ve said before:

@Karthik

I’m a notorious nitpicker myself.

=p

Thanks Karthik.

[Karthik]

@Vex Mundi

First off, thanks for the very quick response time to Q+A threads lately. Your dedication hasn’t gone unnoticed.

You’re welcome!

@Vex Mundi

Question 1: What is meant by “unsafe”? Does it apply exclusively to things that are unsafe to humans, or does it also apply to things that are unsafe to property (robots, field elements, scoring objects)?

It applies to actions that are unsafe to humans, as well as actions that could do excessive damage to Robots, Field Elements and Scoring Objects. As you can understand it would be impossible to create an exhaustive list of unsafe actions, or even to provide a specific all-encompassing definition.

@Vex Mundi

Question 2: In this Q+A thread from June, you used the words “attempt to damage the field” in reference to <S1>.

So the question is: Was this Q+A intended to make attempts to damage the field illegal, or was this an oversight? Should referees be evaluating intent when assessing potential <S1> violations?

Attempts to damage the field are illegal, as well as unintentional actions that cause excessive damage to the field. For example, a Robot that while trying to score rips the Goals off the wall. There intent was not to damage the field, however their action caused excessive amounts of damage.

@Vex Mundi

The only rules that allow for disablement in the manual are <S2> and <SG6> (though allowing them under <S1> seems sensible). If it was your intention to allow disablements under <S1>, could you please clarify when they should be used?

Teams should be Disabled under <S1>, if Disabling the team will terminate an unsafe condition. For example, if a team is about rip a properly secured Goal of the wall, a referee would be within his/her rights to disable the Robot.

With the safety rules, the intent is always to prevent unsafe conditions that could injure humans, or cause excessive damage to the field or Robots.

However, the intent is not to mitigate aggressive game play. VEX Toss Up is a highly interactive game; we do not want referees using <S1> as justification for Disabling or Disqualifying robots who play with an aggressive style.