Potential rule usage to (maybe automatically) dq a wallbot

So I was reading through the recent ruling updates from the recent Q&A, and I was wondering about a specific scenario involving a wallbot blocking the protected goal zone. If a robot were to drive up to the wallbot so that it is in contact with it and somehow throw a cube past the wall and into contact with the inner protected zone, I believe this would result in a rule violation of the wallbot. As established by the Q&A, contacting an opposing alliance contacting their own goal wall, scoring area, or inner protected zone counts as indirect contact and a violation of the given zone’s contact rule. It has also been established that a cube, even when separated from a robot (but only if the robot caused that cube to move), functions as an extension of the robot, and contact rules come into play for the cube’s contact as well. It follows that the cubes of an opposing robot that you are contacting function as an extension of the opposing robot which function as an extension of yourself. I am curious as to whether this interpretation of contacting contacting contact is accurate to what is described by the rules.
I am also curious as to what the ruling would be. I am sure that the victim wallbot would argue that the action was an intentional forced violation of the rules, but the cube-throwing team could reasonably argue that they were merely attempting to score by projecting the cube into the zone for stacking. Also, the rulebook indicates that offensive teams should be favored in ruling, and the cube-thrower is behaving offensively. Also, would this only dq when it is match affecting? My thinking is that contact with the inner protected zone is an instant disqualification regardless of match affecting, but even if it did come down to whether the actions were match affecting or not, would only the offending action be accounted for, or would the overall actions of the wallbot after that point be considered into whether the violation is match affecting?
I really have no idea how this would be ruled, and I am curious as to what the consensus would be. I am aware that the things said here are not official, so upon confirmation that this idea is not completely outlandish, I may send in a Q&A question.

Although not an official response, I believe that G3 applies here, the common sense rule. I would not DQ the wall bot in this case. The wall bot is doing nothing to cause the cube to land in their opponent’s inner protected zone. And a team cannot force and opponent into a violation, As a referee, I would not want to have to rule on the offensive robot’s intent. To me, this is a play on unless we get an official ruling to the contrary.


+100000000 this is a very important rule


That makes sense. In the past, I have had these rules about intentional violation be waived if the robot was attempting to score, but I agree about the commons sense rule.

As per other recent Q&A answers, this doesn’t always apply when involving an interaction between offensive and defensive robots. For example, if the offensive robot were to push the defensive robot into the offensive robot’s inner protected zone, this would result in a DQ for the defensive robot. The justification is G13.


I think the other thing that comes up is that the wall bot did not touch them. If a team was inside their inner protected zone with their tray and then ran into another robot would the robot that got ran into be dqed bc the other team was in the inner protected zone?

Or if a team was trying to stack and hit a team with their anti tip would the team that got hit be dqed bc the team scoring is “the offensive robot”

I certainly do not disagree about the ruling on the G13 justification. It is difficult to give a blanket ruling to a specific situation (paraphrase the GDC). However, in the situation as spelled out by the OP, I believe that I would NOT DQ the wall-bot.

I agree, but I would still post a Q&A to clarify this case. G3 is a great rule to have but often doesn’t suffice to answer DQ-or-no-DQ hypotheticals.

As established by the Q&A, contacting an opposing alliance contacting their own goal wall, scoring area, or inner protected zone counts as indirect contact and a violation of the given zone’s contact rule.

This is wrong. This is why you should always quote relevant rulings when discussing the rules, rather than paraphrasing them.


Yes, one Robot pushing another into causing some action is considered “indirect contact” by the first Robot.

The wall bot in this case is not causing the action. Hence, it is not indirect contact, so the wall bot would not be DQ’ed.


Thanks, I did not understand that distinction, but that makes a ton of sense.

Edit: my understanding of Q&A # 503,536,432 is that my first statement is correct. Might have worded it badly, but it’s not really relevant, I agree with your second point.

1 Like

No. It is not an extension of the robot. <SG7> says that you cannot use cubes to do what your robot can’t do, not that cubes are extensions of your robot. You are confusing it with <G12d> which says that possessed cubes are extensions of the robot that possesses them.


See, this makes sense, and I would be inclined to agree with you. However, the GDC disagrees:




I think there is sufficient doubt here as to whether SG7 would apply or not that it warrants a Q&A question.


The answer provided by the GDC to this question addresses the idea of using an edge case of a robot being inside it’s protected zone and drawing a penalty: https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2019-2020/QA/432

Even if you could argue that the thrown cube was an extension of the robot, the comment above would indicate that should not lead to a disqualification.
I don’t think a thrown cube could logically be considered an extension of the robot in this case. If it were, you could argue that any cube your robot touched throughout the match is an extension of your robot, which is ludicrous.

1 Like