Large ball underneath hanging robot


Just wondering, I had an idea and was wondering if it’s legal or actually would work.

If an opposing team robot was high-hanging and you push a large ball underneath it once it finishes, which doesn’t interfere with the hanging but makes it touch the big ball on the ground, does this cause the robot to be effectively touching the ground?

Sorry if this is a silly question.

In my opinion it’s technically touching the ball, and not touching the ground (tiles). I don’t know the technical definition of ground though.

Even if the hanging robot is touching the ball it counts as a hang.

The real problem is of the violation of rule <SG7> that the robot in which is putting a large ball under the hanging bar is doing. So basically the robot putting a ball under the hanging robot would be DQ’d and the hanging robot would not be affected.

Soooo…what if I do this in auton? I should be fine…because its not the last 30 seconds of the match.

I believe that was answered here:

I am referring to when the robot is hanging and then you put a large ball underneath that is touching the hanging robot as well.

The situation the author of this thread protrayed suggested that the action were to occur when the hanging robot had already undergone the action of hanging, and the large ball is touching both robots at some moment, and that it is in driver control.

What if the ball hits the bot during auton?

Doesn’t matter. As long as you dont break the plane of the opposing team’s starting tile, you get away scott-free.

Even if you touch the opposing team’s hanging structure or robot, you wouldn’t get penalties since rule SG7 only applies to 30 seconds remaining.

Awesome, thanks!

Remember Karthik ruled that a large ball is part of the robot that is hanging. So the “robot” is touching the ground and thus not hanging.

This is a nice QA question though.

I think there was also a thread that stated that if a big ball supported a robot while the bot was touching the hanging structure it would be considered a hang. I’m fairly sure…but, I might be wrong. (I can not check at the moment because I’m in mobile.)

So, then we have conflicting rulings :confused:

Here is the QA I was referring to.

The act of shoving a ball into hanging robot would DQ you but if you like rolled it across the field it would legal and stop their hang assuming I am understanding the rule correctly.

According to the ruling I think if a hanging robot touches a ball below it then it isn’t touching ground?

IF the ball is an extension of the robot then the “robot” is touching the ground.

The question would be in regards to he word “held” and if Karthik wan’t to clarify his point on the rule.

Read <SG7>:

To violate <SG7> you have to actually touch the robot or the hanging structure. Pushing a large ball into a hanging robot isn’t the same thing as touching that robot. <S1> and <G11> still exist to protect hanging robots in these circumstances, but <SG7> doesn’t cover this situation.

Also, <SG7> requires that a violation be “egregious (match affecting)” or that a team have prior warnings before a DQ can be given. You can’t just disqualify a team for an <SG7> violation without context.

It’s possible that if a Q+A were asked about this, Karthik would extend the scope of <SG7> to cover robots pushing large balls into robots that are hanging. If I had a robot I was planning to hang with at worlds I would be asking that Q+A. But referees should be enforcing the <SG7> that exists now and not the <SG7> they think will exist next time Karthik amends it.

No, not at all.

When I ref I have a preference for enforcing the rules as written and waiting for Q+A confirmation if I suspect something might have been written wrong. But there’s a difference between that and being deliberately obtuse.

Karthik clearly stated (twice) that touching a ball below the barrier didn’t affect a robot’s hanging level:

The Q+A thread that you’re reffering to (this one):
which is the context in which the answer is supposed to be read.“After careful deliberation amongst the VRC Game Design Committee, we have decided to change our interpretation of <SG7>…”

The rule as written states.
Please note that this Q&A supersedes all past Q&A entries on this topic.

That means all Q&A’s before this are void if contradicting this recent QA.

As I stated the confusion is in regards to the word “held” or if karthik wishes to revise his point.

The job of the ref is to follow the rules. Some rules allow the refs to make judgement calls as to decide if an action broke a rule but nothing in the rules gives refs the authority to decide if they believe a rule is unfair or irrelevant. That is were differences in regions spring up. If a problem exists with the rule it is the refs job to clarify but up until the point a ruling is made follow the current rules. When people start worrying about “karthik’s intention” they go away from the rules and instead go to what they think the rules should be.
And CURRENTLY the rules state the ball is an extension of the robot so if a ball touches the ground the robot is touching the ground.

The clarification that would be needed is to change this

Any Scoring Objects which are held by a Robot that is touching the Hanging Bar/Structure, when there are less than 30 seconds remaining in the match, will be considered an extension of the Robot in regards to SG7.

At a tournament in our region, this situation occurred. One of our club teams was paired with a robot that could reach the hang structure and pull itself up, but had backdrive that let the robot fall back down. Our club team, knowing this pushed a large ball underneath the robot on the hanging structure, holding the robot up. The refs ruled that since the ball wasn’t being “held” by the robot hanging, it was considered a high hang. I think “held” is the magic word here. The hanging robot didn’t have control over the ball it was resting on, and the ball shouldn’t be considered an extension of the robot, so I would consider this a legal hang by the way I interpret the rule.

Agreed. This is how I read the ruling. If it goes the other way, I’m cancelling EVERY hang that I play against by shoving large balls at you. That’s 40 points that I can get rid of by pushing things. Hanging would be worthless.

Yes, “this topic” being <SG7>.

That’s already what the post says, just phrased differently. You have to read the post in full rather than taking the sentence in question (“Any Scoring Objects which are held by a Robot that is touching the Hanging Bar/Structure, when there are less than 30 seconds remaining in the match, will be considered an extension of the Robot”) out of context.

This is mostly true. I’m mostly a literalist when it comes to VEX rules, but there are times when the meaning of a rule isn’t totally clear or when rules contradict each other (in this case, the answer given to the Q+A arguably contradicts the previous Q+A threads and the hanging definition in the manual). In those cases refs are forced to rely on their judgement and what they think the intent was. I don’t think that’s necessary in this case, since I think the post clearly states that its scope is limited to <SG7>, but there are certainly times when it is necessary (such as here).

Part of that judgement is remembering that Q+A answers are simply written less carefully than the manual is. If a Q+A answer about one rule appears to contradict a completely different rule in the manual then it’s far more likely to be a simple mistake that will soon be cleared up than an actual rule change that will still be in force come Worlds.

Anyway, Q+A thread is up here.

Karthik replied: