Official Q&A: VRC 2019-2020: Tower Takeover
520: <SG3> Is SG3 only enforced conditionally?
This is an extension from QA 451 https://events.vex.com/VEXU/2019-2020/QA/451 QA 398 https://events.vex.com/VEXU/2019-2020/QA/398
From QA 451, It was ruled that if interactions between robots are completely accidental, then no G14 or SG3 violation has occurred.
From QA 398, It was ruled that even if interaction between robots and field space are completely accidental, SG3 violation will still be called if robot ever enters the 3D plane of inner protection zone.
QA451 also uses words like "intentional" as a prerequisite for SG3 violation, therefore as a connection word to imply the first has to happen for the latter to apply
of the Red Robot were intentional (and therefore an SG3 violation).
However, SG3 states that
<SG3> Stay away from your opponent’s protected areas. Robots may not intentionally or accidentally, directly or indirectly, perform the following actions:
Note that accidental, indirect contact also falls under SG3.
Should this be interpreted as that SG3 applies differently when there is robot vs robot contact compare to robot vs field space?
Also, can clarification be provided on the following case:
red is playing defense around the blue goal zone, and blue robot drives directly into red robot in an attempt to score and resulted in stacks falling over/ red robot is pushed into the inner protection zone/barrier. In the other word, does blue robot have to try to go around the red robot before making robot to robot interaction, or are they free to drive directly into the red robot since the intention of the red robot is very clear - to play defense and try to slow down the blue robot
Thanks,
Should this be interpreted as that SG3 applies differently when there is robot vs robot contact compare to robot vs field space?
This question is a good example of why we typically try to avoid providing blanket, overarching answers to hypothetical questions that rely on in-match context.
<SG3> Stay away from your opponent’s protected areas. Robots may not intentionally or accidentally, directly or indirectly, perform the following actions:
F - Cause Scored Cubes within the opponent’s Protected Zone to no longer meet the definition of Scored (i.e. “knock over their stack”).
The specific question being asked in Q&A 451 involves a scenario where a set of Scored Cubes have become de-Scored due to a hypothetical interaction that could have occurred anywhere on the field, in any number of ways, and "caused" by any number of root actions. Robot-vs-Robot and Robot-vs-field-space is irrelevant; what is relevant is how realistic it would be for a Head Referee to determine where the incident falls along the G13, G14, and SG3 spectrum.
The following questions present other related scenarios, and our answers attempt to illustrate some of the reasons why it is impossible to provide a blanket overarching answer without context.
https://events.vex.com/VRC/2019-2020/QA/432
https://events.vex.com/VRC/2019-2020/QA/449
https://events.vex.com/VRC/2019-2020/QA/503
red is playing defense around the blue goal zone, and blue robot drives directly into red robot in an attempt to score and resulted in stacks falling over/ red robot is pushed into the inner protection zone/barrier. In the other word, does blue robot have to try to go around the red robot before making robot to robot interaction, or are they free to drive directly into the red robot since the intention of the red robot is very clear - to play defense and try to slow down the blue robot
We feel that this question is answered by post 449, specifically the following portion:
All Robots are responsible for their own actions. An offensive Robot who pushes a defensive Robot into any SG3 violation, as the result offensive maneuvers, should be considered a G13 interaction. Therefore, the offensive Robot should receive the "benefit of the doubt", and the defensive Robot should receive the appropriate penalty for whichever portion of SG3 was violated (B, D, E, or F). However, In order to be considered a G13 interaction, the Head Referee must judge that the offensive Robot is actually acting "offensively", not just trying to draw a penalty. An example of "offensive intent" could mean a traditionally offensive Robot carrying Cubes towards an empty Goal Zone.
Since the snapshot description implies that the Head Referee has determined the blue Robot was acting offensively, this interaction would be considered a violation of SG3-D or F.