Answered: What counts as "egregious" under <SG10>?

<SG10> says (quite sensibly) that trying to cause your opponent to break a rule is not allowed, and that any resulting rulebreaking by the opponent won’t be penalised.

It then says that (and this is the part that gets confusing) if an SG10 violation affects the match, the team who was trying to cause their opponent to break a rule will be disqualified.

The question is, how is an <SG10> violation supposed to affect the match? Since the rule violation by the opponents of the team who violated <SG10> isn’t penalised, it’s not clear how an egregious <SG10> violation is possible. Could you please give a concrete example of an action that would be considered a match affecting violation of <SG10>?

Recursion mode: Can a team be disqualified for causing an opponent to violate SG10? If so, how deep does it go? And how are referees supposed to assess whether a team intends to cause their opponents to intentionally cause them to intentionally cause their opponents to violate a rule?

For the most part, it shouldn’t. We expect most if not all <SG10> violations to lead to warnings on the team employing an intentional strategy to cause their opponent to take a penalty.

This is helpful, but it doesn’t shed any light on what the few possible exceptions might be in which an <SG10> DQ is actually warranted. The best I can do with this is “never disqualify anyone under <SG10>”. This is what I have been doing so far, but if it isn’t in line with what will be done at Worlds then it isn’t the best preparation for teams. There was an attempt at providing an example in the referee training video, where the red robot pushes the blue robot into the red skyrise “to try and draw a penalty”. In this example it isn’t clear how this action could be match affecting, because the penalty that red is trying to draw will never be given, because of <SG10>. The video says that the referee response in this example should be that red “may be warned or DQed”, which is very vague.

Could you please provide a concrete example of an <SG10> violation that would be match-affecting (and therefore DQ worthy) if such a thing exists?

Should <SG10> warnings ever escalate to a disqualification, and if so, when?


“intentional strategy to cause their opponent to take a penalty” implies that the intent of the strategy is to cause the opponent to take a penalty, which according to this thread is a much narrower set of actions than the set of actions that are <SG10> violations.

I want to check which if any of the following are intended purposes of <SG10>:

  • to penalise teams who try to get penalties called on their opponents
  • to penalise teams who cause their opponents to perform actions that would (were it not for SG10) be against the rules

And, are there any other intended purposes of <SG10> that I haven’t mentioned, besides forgiving would-be illegal actions that teams are forced into by their opponents?

Consider the situation where a Blue Robot is holding a Red Cube. The Red Robot somehow pushes the Blue Robot, forcing the Blue Robot to release the Red Cube onto a Red Skyrise. Red has forced Blue into violating <SG9> and has gained extra points in the process. Blue would not be penalized for violating <SG9> since Red has violated <SG10>. Red could also be disqualified if the points scored in the process turn out to be match affecting.

Yes, when they are match affecting.