# Descoring cubes legally?

So I saw something brought up by someone in a different topic and I had to check to see if it was actually legal. They said,“As long as the cube isn’t actually scored (still touching robot) you can descore it.” So I had to actually see if it’s legal to descore you opponent’s stack when it’s still touching their robot.

1 Like

I think the recent G12 rule update pretty much makes that illegal.

1. Updated Rule G12 to clarify entanglement of game objects possessed by robots of the opposing alliance

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.

4 Likes

Still, what if the cube isn’t touching the robot but it is still not truly scored or instance: stacked on a cube that isn’t considered stacked.

In that case it’s just a cube and you can do what you like with it, assuming no other rules are violated. You may run the risk of causing something that is stored to become descored.

I actually don’t understand how does the revised G12 makes it illegal to remove cubes from opponents’ robots.

Firstly, cubes are only scored when they are stacked in the goals. The cubes are not consider as scored when they are in the robots.

Secondly, a lot depends on how the cubes are being placed or stored in the robots - if the cubes can be removed without the need of grasping or hooking or entanglement, then going by the rules, there is no infringement.

I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I don’t see the intent of G12 as to ban descoring or removing cubes from robots (gdc would have just state it explicitly if it is the intent, e.g. as in ITZ).
I interpreted the intent to Ensure the robots do not get entangled.

4 Likes

Personally I beleive that the entire purpose of g12 is to prevent the descoring of cubes. If there was say an angled cube in the corner scoring zone with no protected zone you technically remove cubes from the top I beleive but I don’t think that that would be considered ethical within the games message

1 Like

Ermm… don’t think I can agree that the entire purpose of G12 is to prevent descoring of cubes.

The main intent of all the rules are in bold and is reflected in the first statement of the rules. And for G12 - it is not to destroy the opponents’ robots.

3 Likes

I just read the whole rule and think you are correct. It appears that this is addressing entanglement and not descoring cubes inside robots. A Q&A on it wouldn’t hurt, but this rule is focused on entanglement not descoring.

3 Likes

To me, it explicitly says that grasping or hooking cubes in possession of a opposing robot is a violation of that rule. So there are ways of removing cubes from an opponent that don’t meet that definition, but some form of hooking them out would be a violation of G12.

To elaborate - if you removed any other part of an opponent’s robot through some form of hooking or grasping, you’d be in violation of G12. The cubes become an extension of the robot and so are subject to the same rules as any other part of the robot.

3 Likes

@Gear_Geeks I’m a little confused as this is the opposite to what you said when I asked the same question. Has there been some new information released that made you changed your mind?

2 Likes

Think i have clearly mentioned that as long as the cubes are remove without entanglement or hooking or grasping, then there is no violation.

Your interpretation of the is not exactly wrong - it is a violation if the cubes are removed via grasping or hooking.

But the intent of the rule is not to rule out removing cubes from robots, the main intent (as bold in the first statement of G12) is to prevent entanglement and destroying each other robots.

So that means, it is wrong to say that teams are entirely not allow to remove cubes from other robots. It all depends on how this “removing” is being done.

3 Likes

Definitions of “Hooking” and “Grasping” would really clear this up as different referees may determine different actions as violating the rules and not.

1 Like

No new information. The first time I posted, I only read the part in the OP. Today, I read the whole rule and it made me change my mind. That and posts that were made on here.

1 Like

I did asked gdc about the definition before… many years ago. Think it was the year after gateway.
And their answer was along the line of - grappling is grappling, and hooking is hooking. Lol…

Oh well… this year they did say that previous years Q&A are not valid anymore.
So if you are concern about the actual definition, then it might be a good idea to post in the official Q&A

2 Likes

@Gear_Geeks Ah, thanks for clarifying.
@meng haha, not the most helpful answer especially with how major descoring could be this year. I’ll try go through the official Q&A route. Thanks.

3 Likes