It has recently come to my attention that in the Vex Turning Point Game Manual, it no longer provides insight into the definition of “egregious”. For example:
<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.
In the Vex Toss Up Game Manual, it clarified the word “egregious” with the parenthetical “match affecting”. For example:
Scoring Objects that leave the playing field will be promptly returned to the playing field in the same
Zone as the Robot that ejected the Scoring Object. Teams may not intentionally remove Scoring Objects
from the scoring field, while not in the process of Stashing or removing Stashed Scoring Objects.
Violations of this rule will result in a warning for minor offenses which do not affect the match. Egregious
(match affecting) offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams who receive multiple warnings may also
receive a Disqualification at the head referee’s discretion. Note: Scoring Objects will never be returned to
the playing field in a Stashed position.
Has Vex changed the definition of “egregious” at all, or can it be assumed that egregious means match affecting? If the definition has changed, could a clarification on the definition be provided?
Egregious is when it looks very obvious to not look like it isn’t purposeful. Basically speaking, for autonomous, if you make contact with robots on the other side of the field and your robot egregiously continues to push the opposing robot, your team would be disqualified from the match even if it wasn’t match affecting.
Here is some clarification on what I am asking. In one competition, our alliance partner was tipped; however, the ref ruled that the tip was not intentional, and therefore was not dqable. Our argument was that it was egregious behavior. However, there was no clear definition of egregious so it was hard to argue. In the match our partner’s drive popped up during a collision and our opponent drove into them and pushed them over. Would you define this as egregious and match affecting behavior. My original question is not regarding autonomous, rather driver control. In addition, I am asking for a clear definition, as Vex intentionally cut out “Match affecting” as a parenthetical with egregious.
To get an official definition, you’ll need to post on the official Q&A. Traditionally speaking however, the GDC tends to rule that any word not defined in the manual is defined according to its dictionary definition.
Based on my experience reffing, a good rule of thumb for whether behavior is egregious depends on how it affected the relevant robots’ strategy. If the action was an intentional part of the offending robot’s strategy and it messed with the offended robot’s strategy, it’s likely an egregious behavior.