Various official Q&A have been answered regarding this, and it looks to me like the end result of the related Q&A would be “there is a high chance of a DQ due to a variety of things”. Is that what others are seeing as well? It is a tangled mess, IMO, where some vague non-answers refer the reader to a whole cascade of “referred to” posts.
My overall understanding of what could cause a DQ for ramming a robot in the unprotected zone:
- If A rams B and B touches the goal zone / barrier: SG3D violation. A gets a warning. If the result is match-affecting A gets a DQ. If A does this repeatedly over the match or day, A could get a DQ.
- If A rams B and B touches a scored stack: SG3B violation. A gets a warning. If the result is match-affecting A gets a DQ. If A does this repeatedly over the match or day, A could get a DQ.
- If A rams B and cubes from B go out of the field: SG6/G14 violation. A gets a warning. If the result is match-affecting A gets a DQ. If A does this repeatedly over the match or day, A could get a DQ.
- And of course A should be careful of trapping and entanglement.
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2019-2020/QA/536 (refers to 432)
- meaning of indirect contact remains the same
- My reading of this is ‘yes - if you touch a robot that is touching it’s goal zone/barrier, this is indirect contact and you have violated SG3-D’.
- indirect contact depends on context (but IMO in this context it is pretty clearly the robot doing the ramming who is doing the indirect contact)
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2019-2020/QA/505 (refers to 353 and 288)
- notes particularly SG3-B (don’t contact scored cubes) and D (don’t contact goal zones/barriers)
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2019-2020/QA/353 (refers to 288 and 296 and ref training video)
- again, notes SG3-B&D; also says that “if parts B and/or D have not been violated, then no SG3 violation has occurred”
- My reading is that the use of “have not been violated” indicates that if those HAD been violated, an SG3 violation has occurred - so if you indirectly contact scored cubes or goal zones/barriers, it is a violation of SG3D.
- basically saying that SG3-B is for match-affecting
- non-protected zone descoring is SG3B and hitting the field perimeter counts as indirect contact
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2019-2020/QA/504 (Q refers to 462)
- playing defense on unprotected corner and knocking cubes out of the field is a combination of SG6 and G14 violation
- My reading is that intentionally and repeatedly causing cubes to leave the field by ramming a robot trying to stack in the corner is a violation of SG6 / G14.
- putting a small stack up in auton and then knocking it down and having cubes leave the field is a potential violation of SG6.