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.
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.
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.
Quote from QA 467(the scenario described by you if listed as one of the scenarios for clarification)
It is impossible to provide blanket answers that would apply to all hypothetical scenarios captured by the snapshot descriptions you have provided. These interactions are highly dependent on the context of the Match, the event, any previous warnings/violations, any previous interactions in the Match, etc. In general, we would point to the answers provided in the two Q&A’s you have linked as our overarching direction to Head Referees for guiding their judgment calls. The dynamic sport of competitive robotics inherently includes “gray area” situations that cannot rely on black-and-white rules, and must therefore rely upon the in-context and on-the-spot judgment of human referees in these cases.
Basically depends on how the referees interpret the rules and how they connect all QAs together. It would be a fun time at Worlds’ drivers meeting
Remember that SG7 (oh how we love SG7 /s) (cubes are a part of the robot) also applies here, so a robot that has cubes which are contacting a goal zone, barrier, or scored cube is also invulnerable.
Team TX, my understanding of all of this matches yours. It’s going to dramatically affect defense, as the region I head ref in hasn’t been nearly this aggressive in calling indirect contact. It’s a wild and wacky year to be a head referee, that’s for sure!
<G12> Don’t destroy other Robots. But, be prepared to encounter defense. Strategies aimed solely
at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or Entanglement of opposing Robots are not part of the ethos
of the VEX Robotics Competition and are not allowed. If the tipping, Entanglement, or damage is ruled
to be intentional or egregious, the offending Team may be Disqualified from that Match. Repeated
offenses could result in Disqualification from the entirety of the competition.
a. VEX Robotics Competition Tower Takeover is intended to be an offensive game. Teams that
partake in solely defensive or destructive strategies will not have the protections implied by
(see ). However, defensive play which does not involve destructive or illegal strategies is still within the spirit of this rule.
b. VEX Robotics Competition Tower Takeover is an interactive game. Some incidental tipping,
Entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal gameplay without violation. It will be
up to the Head Referee’s discretion whether the interaction was incidental or intentional.
c. A Team is responsible for the actions of its Robot at all times, including the Autonomous Period.
This applies both to Teams that are driving recklessly or potentially causing damage, and to
Teams that drive around with a small wheel base. A Team should design its Robot such that it is
not easily tipped over or damaged by minor contact. d. Game elements in possession of a Robot are an extension of that Robot. Therefore,
Entanglement (e.g., grasping, hooking, attaching) with Cubes that are in the possession of an
opposing Robot is a violation of this rule.
I think tower play will likely become slightly more competitive now. Interesting rulings. I feel like this will end up enforcing the tray bot meta even more than before because now DR4B’s going for towers will be targeted by defense. Sad.
This just killed most dr4b strays for playing defense over there. This just reinforces the tray meta and makes it more about getting that full 10-12 stack in that corner instead of sacrificing a cube or 2 to actually put the stack up
It would most certainly be a dq now. Both because they’re purposefully pushing cubes out of the field (the cubes have nowhere else to go) and because the offensive robot is touching the barrier.
What @Sylvie posted is indeed illegal, but it is not necessarily a DQ. That would depend on whether it was match affecting, how many warnings the team had previously, etc.
It would be VERY hard to determine if something like that is match affecting, especially if it happened early in the match. Who is is say that that team wouldn’t have scored a massive amount of points using towers if they were able to get that stack up?
I would say that Ref’s should be erring on the side of the offensive robot here and unless the match was completely one sided otherwise, this would almost always be match affecting. Use this defensive strategy at your own risk!
