Q&A

GG4 states: a. Drive Team Members are allowed to reach into the Field during the Match while introducing Match Loads as described in rule <SG11>. Rule <S1> applies.

Q&A 3205 clarified that SG11 provides an exception to GG4 and allows teams to reach into the field to place a match “down inside the Loader”, to clarify that reaching into the Loader itself is legal.

The question is, how far can a loader reach into and through the Loader and still be “inside the Loader”?

Example photos are attached to show degrees of reach in match loading.

The first photo appears to be clearly “down inside the Loader”, and the fourth photo appears clearly not okay because the match load is outside the load zone. However, photos 2 and 3 show a match load where the hand leaves through the bottom of the loader and turns to reach outside of the Loader to place the match load. This seems inconsistent with GG4, keeping hands out of the field, and S1, be safe.

Appreciate any clarification on whether reaching out through the bottom of the Loader, as shown in photos 2 and 3, is still considered legally "inside the loader".

SG11 photos.pdf

Is there rule dictating when or under what circumstances the human player on a drive team is allowed to lift up the matchloader to put a game element in in? For example, does the robot have to be within the protected Load Zone for the drive team member to lift the matchloader to put a game element in? Or can the human player keep the matchloader held up at all times?

Our team is testing a few method of loading and wanted to know if the following two methods are legal ways to load:

1. Loader is lifted up, pin and cup loaded onto the field, set the loader down so that it now sits on part of the pin when released, acting like a way to hold the objects.

2. Loader is lifted up, loader places a cup and pin from the back of it to sit on the floor, but the pin is placed on the floor far enough, that it sits outside of the loader when it is closed.

So the two questions being asked, can the loader be in contact with game elements after being loaded and is there a requirement that the game objects loaded be within the volume of the loader once the load is complete?

<SG11>

We are seeking clarification regarding <GG4> and <SG11> when using the Match Loader. <GG4> <SG11>

Consider the following scenario:

The Match Loader is in its fully lowered position. A Drive Team Member places a single Pin into the Match Loader and briefly puts their hand inside the Loader in order to properly position the Pin.

The sequence is:

The Match Loader is fully lowered. The Drive Team Member places a single Pin into the Loader and briefly reaches their hand inside the Loader to position the Pin properly. The Drive Team Member completely removes their hand from the Loader. After the hand has been fully removed is the Match Loader raised.

At no point is the Match Loader raised while the Drive Team Member's hand is inside it.

Would briefly placing a hand inside the fully lowered Match Loader for the purpose of properly positioning a Pin be considered a violation of <GG4> or <SG11>?

More specifically, does the hand entering the Loader in this manner count as entering the 3-dimensional volume of the Field under <GG4>, or is this action permitted as part of Match Loading under <SG11>?

Thank you for your clarification.

<SG11> SG11a states that "scoring objects may only be introduced...during the Driver Controlled Period of a match". The definition of match in Appendix B defines "Autonomous Coding Skills Matches" as matches with "no Driver Controlled Period". My interpretation of is rule is that, when read together with the definition, it forbids match-loading during Autonomous Skills Matches.

However, at some events it has been ruled that teams are allowed to introduce match loads during Autonomous Skills Matches. Whilst the rules seem fairly clear, because of the potential impact of this ruling (especially if it were to be applied inconsistently between competitions) I wanted to ensure that it was clarified.

Therefore: Does SG11a forbid introducing match loads during Autonomous Skills Matches?

<SG11>

In rule SG11 it states "introduce' refers to the moment when a Drive Team Member has released a Scoring Object into a Loader." However, point b of SG11 states "A Match Load Scoring Object may not be contacted by a Robot prior to being introduced into a Loader." Since the only definition of matchloading is when someone releases a game object into a loader, is it legal for a robot to be sitting under a raised loader and a driveteam member releasing a game object into the loader and it falls directly into the robot without it first touching the ground?

<SG11>

The Driver's Station appears to be about a foot from the field and a foot from the end of the field. It would be difficult for a drive team member to stay in the driver's station as drawn and interact with the loader as intended. Are Event Partners allowed to change the Driver's Station so that it is against the field and goes to the end of the field?

Thanks!

As a referee, I would like guidance on how to apply the Match Affecting logic when opposing teams commit the violation. It is probably easiest to explain this with Park Zone violations.

Here's the real world scenario:

1. In the last 20 seconds, Blue Robot 1 contacts Red Robot 1 while Red Robot 1 is in / in contact with the Red Park Zone
2. In the last 20 seconds, Red Robot 2 contacts Blue Robot 2 while Blue Robot 2 is in / in contact with the Blue Park Zone
3. Red 1 Parks (solo), neither Blue Robot Parks
4. As scored on the field, Red wins the match by 8 points

My interpretation (hopefully correct) was that because Blue did not achieve their park, that 8 points should be considered for whether the violation was Match Affecting. Given Red won by 8, those 8 points for the Park for Blue would have changed the outcome from a Red Win to a Tie match, and therefore Red Robot 2 should be DQed for a Match Affecting violation.

A. Is this the correct interpretation? B. Had Red 1 not parked, the match score would have been a tie, and it would seem no DQs would apply. Is that the correct interpretation? C. If the answer to B is no DQs, it seems somewhat unfair to punish Red for successfully parking (in spite of the potential SG11 violation), given both Red and Blue committed the same (or equivalent) violations.

<SG11>

<SC4>

Per rule SC4, and including clarification provided in Q&A 2672, if blue team uses a block as support to keep their robot from touching tiles outside the parking zone, would red team be in violation of SG11 if they use a mechanism to remove the block from underneath blue team's robot without touching blue's robot or the parking zone?<SG11>

<SG11>

1. If a robot intentionally drives into an opposing team's parking zone prior to the 20 second protected period and remains stuck within the parking zone, is this considered "intentional" in all cases? Thus resulting in a Major Violation and disqualification of the match for that team?
2. Must the robot(s) entitled to park in their parking zone make an attempt to park in order to be granted Match Affecting points?
3. If so, what represents and attempt to park? If they are in route and never touch the zone while an opposing robot is in the protected area is this still a Match Affecting adjustment of points? Or, must they actually attempt to touch of push the opposing robot out of their parking zone?
4. If there is no clear indication that a team is attempting to park does the alliance color with the opposition's robot in their zone receive a single park bonus or double park bonus? The opposing robot within the park zone would have prevented both from parking if they tried.

<SG11> says that "Park Zones are protected during the endgame. During the last 20 seconds of a Match, Robots may not directly or indirectly contact the other Alliance’s Park Zone or opponent Robots that are partially or entirely within the vertical projection of that Park Zone."

Questions:

1. If a robot becomes disabled while touching the park zone earlier in the match, do they still receive a SG11 violation when they're touching the park zone in the last 20 seconds?
2. If a BLUE robot becomes disabled earlier in the match and gets pushed up against the park zone by a RED robot, resulting in them still touching the park zone during the last 20 seconds, do they still receive a violation? I recognize that you can't force another team into a violation, but this is an action that happened before the last 20 seconds. Would this still be considered RED forcing BLUE into an violation, or would the disabled BLUE team be responsible since it happened naturally during game play and they could not remove themselves from the park zone?

Thanks!

<SG11>

I like to ask about <SG11>.

Current situation: If a blue Alliance Robot positions itself in front of the red Alliance Park Zone to defend, the intent is to block the red Alliance Robot from Parking.

There are several ruling questions (all occurring in the last 20 seconds of the Match):

Question 1. If, during contact between the blue and red Robots, the red Robot pushes the blue Robot into the red Park Zone, is this considered a “forced” <GG16> penalty by red (and if it is a penalty, how should Match Affecting be determined), or is it a penalty on blue?

Question 2.If the blue Robot, while moving to defend, contacts the red Park Zone during the last 20 seconds, does that constitute a penalty on blue under <SG11>?

Question 3.If the blue and red Robots are entangled, and while attempting to separate the blue Robot enters the red Park Zone, does that count as a Violation by blue? (Consider <SG11> and the protected status of Robots that are at least partially within the vertical projection of their Alliance-colored Park Zone.)

Question 4.If it is not clear whether red forced blue into a Violation, blue intentionally blocked, or an accidental Violation occurred during a tussle, should advantage be given to red? (Consider <GG15> “Offensive Robots get the benefit of the doubt,” and <GG16> on forced penalties.)

Match Affecting - A Violation which changes the winning and losing Alliance in the Match. ○ Multiple Violations within a Match can cumulatively become Match Affecting. ○ When evaluating if a Violation was Match Affecting, Head Referees will focus primarily on any Robot actions that were directly related to the Violation. ○ Determining whether a Violation was Match Affecting can only be done once the Match is complete and the scores have been calculated.

<SG11> Park Zones are protected during the endgame. Violation Notes: Intentional, strategic, or egregious Violations will be considered Major Violations.

1. Are all <SG11> violations committed by an alliance that win the match Match Affecting?

2. If no to question 1, should the value used for Match Affecting calculations be 8 points (the value of an individual robot parking) or should the value scale accordingly with the specific interactions of that match (1 opponent robot in their park zone uses a 22 point value, 0 opponent robots in their park zone use 8 points if the <SG11> violation was against one opponent, and 0 opponent robots in their park zone use 30 points if <SG11> violations were against each opponent)?

<SG11>

If Red Robot 1 is attempting to Park (but is not yet Parked, but is in contact with the Red Park Zone) while Blue Robot 1 is attempting to defend it. Red Robot 1 is in contact with the Park Zone when Blue Robot 1 attempts to push it into the wall. Is this "Indirect" contact with the Park Zone? If so, would it be fair to say that this is "intentional" and/or "strategic"? In the course of this action, Blue Robot 1 may also come into direct contact with the Park Zone (still while the Red Robot is not parked, or is in a bang-bang state where it is difficult to determine - in which case, as the "offensive" robot, would Red Robot 1 get the "benefit of the doubt"?).

At the UND Signature Event at the Mall of America, on the livestream at 32:09, a head referee defines the Park Zone as the plastic parts AND the FULLY PARKED robot and that "if your robot is not fully parked, your robot is not protected". Given the presence of members of the GDC at the tournament, one would assume that her statements about this interpretation of SG11 are in alignment with the GDC. Given that, can the GDC clarify or provide examples for what "Indirect" contact with the Park Zone in the last 20 seconds would constitute at violation of SG11? Based on GG18, it would seem Blue using a Block to contact the Park Zone would be a violation of SG11. Is this the only such scenario for "Indirect" contact?

Per SG11, no team can contact a mobile goal placed in the positive corners. At a recent tournament, however, we encountered multiple cases of teams removing a placed mobile goal filled only with their own rings during the endgame (with no competitive advantage gained from doing so). In the game manual, the brief note from Q&A 2420 states: "If the score doesn’t change and the Team doesn’t benefit, it probably isn’t a Major Violation". We ruled that since the teams removed their own placed mobile goal, did not gain any benefit, and the match result did not change as a result of the mobile goal no longer being placed, this would be an SG11 minor violation. However, the bolded text of Q&A 2420 explicity states that the scored/placed status of the mobile goal should not change.

If an alliance descoring their own placed mobile goal (filled with only their own rings) does not affect the match result and the team gains no competitive advantage, should this be a major or minor SG11 violation?

Right before the protected period, blue1 is slightly tilting the goal away from their robot in the positive corner on the opposite side of the field in a way that is indeterminable from a head referee and some scorekeeper referee's points of views if the mobile goal is placed but it can be reasonably assumed the goal could be placed. At 30 seconds they drive away and the goal slightly drops from the tilt, causing concern it might have been lifted.

Should a mobile goal always be considered not placed unless confirmed placed similar to Q&A 2122, or should we give benefit of the doubt in the situations that could be considered 50/50 calls?

The violation notes under Rule <SG11> state that:

Intentional, strategic, or egregious Violations will be considered Major Violations

We can think of two scenarios of gameplay in which different interpretations of the meaning of "intentional" can be used:

1. A robot drives up to the goal in the corner and clearly attempts to grab the goal once the 15 second buzzer has passed. The robot seems to willfully violate the rule, regardless of whether or not it actually removes the goal.
2. A robot drives towards the positive zone with a clear intent of manipulating other game elements (i.e. grabbing a ring, or taking a goal that is not considered scored in the corner), and in the process of doing so, bumps or jostles the goal in the corner slightly by accident. There is an intent to move towards the corner, but not to interact with the goal, so one could determine this to be an intentional violation due to the fact that the robot intended to drive close to the positive corner after the 15 seconds.

An example of where scenario 2 became a major violation can be seen in the clip below, where a red robot attempts to grab a red ring near the positive corner and in the process the goal is jostled slightly but is not removed from the corner, nor does it have any impact on the scoring of that goal:

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx0mCDOybwb09hk1PLrNMQJZcpCKwka883?si=5wLVfUnZhCNRUJBZ

Given that there is no change to the scored status of the goal and that the team has no prior minor violations, are both of the two scenarios above considered an intentional violation of SG11? Or does only one of these fall under that interpretation?

<SG11><SG11>

I have a question regarding SG11 and how it should be being called by the referees at events. I understand the protection of the positive corners in the last 15 seconds of the match and the restrictions that come with it. The issue that I’m having is that it has been called differently at two different events in very similar situations.

Situation: Blue robot contacted a placed full goal during eliminations. They did not do this in an attempt to score or de-score any goals but it was due to incidental contact. At the first event they were disqualified and Red was given a win. At the second event the same situation happened and the Blue team was issued a minor violation. I understand that this is up to the interpretation of the head referee but some guidance would be appreciated. These events occurred in the same state/region two weeks apart without any major rule changes that would have impacted the call. Guidance from the committee would be much appreciated, specifically as it pertains to elimination matches. This has had tournament effecting results at both events in question. I think the question we need answered is if a team simply contacts a placed goal within the 15 second protection period is it a DQ or minor violation?

During a game, BLUE1 became stuck on a ring while holding a mobile goal. The robot was inside the positive corner. The mobile goal was also stuck on a ring and was within the volume of the positive corner (they were attempting to place it), but was not touching the ground. They were stuck there for 45 seconds, including the 15 seconds of positive corner protection. Here were the rules questions that arose from this:

1. Was the mobile goal considered in the positive corner since it was not contacting the floor tiles or the tape?
2. Was BLUE1 in violation of SG11 if they did not operate their mobile goal grabbing mechanism to attempt to drop the goal after SG11 takes effect? Would operating the mechanism have made this an SG11 violation?
3. The mobile goal not being placed meant this was not a match affecting violation but if the goal would have been considered placed, it would have been match affecting. Given that this was not match affecting, should this have been a minor violation or a major violation?

<SG11>

Hello, I referenced Q&A #2179 prior to drafting this, and I think it is similar question but slightly different.

In a recent tournament, a match occurred where RED1 placed a Mobile Goal with 4 Scored Rings in one of the positive corners at 14 seconds (they were in the process of placing it prior to the protection, but dropped it right after the timer). Noticing their error, as soon as it was placed and they had briefly backed away, RED1 then approached the stack again and removed it from the corner in an attempt to avoid receiving a Major Violation under SG11.

The match ended with the Mobile Goal stack still on RED1. The Red alliance won the match significantly, with the score of 23-3. As the team was going to win the match regardless, and immediately rectified the situation when noticing their error, per the Violation Notes for <SG11>, it did not seem to be Intentional, strategic, or egregious.

Can you outline whether this should be considered a Minor Violation (as it was not match affecting), or, that any interaction with the positive corner should automatically result in Major Violation and therefore a Disqualification (regardless if the team corrected it prior to the end of the match).

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response!