Q&A

<SC4>

We had several instances where a single bean bag would be on the L1 goal leaning on the side of the L2 goal and part of the bean bag was above the L2 platform leaning over a bit. It always seemed like there was some likely contact with the gray of the level 2 goal, so we would often credit the team with the higher goal. However, the contact was always minimal. Should teams be given the benefit of the doubt in this scenario?

Thanks all for Automate session June 22, nothing like breaking the game on our first spin - several questions ...

#1 Da Rule <SC4> <SC4> A Toggle is considered set to a color when it meets all of the following criteria at the end of the Match: a. The Toggle must be fully seated, such that there is a face of the Toggle in contact and parallel with its mounts on the Field Perimeter at rest. (see Figure SC5-1) b. The Toggle is not in contact with a Robot from either Alliance.

Da Question - Is the black bracket included in the “touch” of a toggle that would cause us to ignore the color of the toggle for scoring

Rule Quote: <GG9>

Robots may not intentionally grasp, grapple, hook, attach to or otherwise Entangled with any Field Elements. Strategies with mechanisms that react against multiple sides of a Field Element in an effort to latch or hook onto said Field Element are prohibited. The intent of this rule is to prevent Teams from unintentionally damaging the Field and/or from anchoring to or otherwise Entangling themselves with the Field. Whenever possible, Head Referees should alert Teams to potential Violations before they happen to prevent actual Violations. If a Robot takes immediate action to avoid or resolve the issue, and if the Head Referee determines that the issue had no effect on the Match, no Violation should be recorded.

<SC4>

SC4> A Toggle is considered set to a color when it meets all of the following criteria at the end of the Match: a. The Toggle must be fully seated, such that there is a face of the Toggle in contact and parallel with its mounts on the Field Perimeter at rest. (see Figure SC5-1) b. The Toggle is not in contact with a Robot from either Alliance.

Question: In the context of the current game, is it legal for a robot to position a piece of C-channel underneath the Toggle mechanism to prevent it from rotating?

The mechanism is not "clamped" or "grasped" in a way that prevents the robot from driving away (no permanent attachment), but the geometry of the C-channel effectively wedges the Toggle so it cannot be turned by an opponent. Does this "jamming" action constitute "attaching to a field element", or is it considered a legal defensive strategy provided the robot can move away freely?

Video I saw on youtube of this idea: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Kyow3GVag-0

<SC4><SC4>

SC4 A Stack that includes more than one color (blue, red, orange, or gray) of Scoring Object receives additional points based on the number of colors in that Stack, up to three colors.

If a triangle goal had one stack of 6 pins, would the pins count for six points, but for only one three color stack? 21 points?

<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>

Clarification of Q&A 2672 regarding GG18

Would it be legal for a team to put the match preload into a mechanism that would be used to help them park at the end of the match? The team's idea is to put the preload into a "holder" with part of the block exposed. During the protected time, the team would drive into the parking zone and initiate a mechanism that would use the block to keep their robot from touching the field tiles outside the parking zone. This satisfies all criteria of SC4. Would this be considered using the block as a "glove" as outlined in GG18 and therefore be illegal?

<SC4>

<GG18>

<SC4><SC4>

The Parking criteria (SC4 Section A part b) specifies:

b. The Robot is not contacting any Field Elements other than the **inside face of the Field Perimeter,** the
    Floor inside of its Alliance-colored Park Zone, and/or the plastic extrusions and connectors that are part
    of the Park Zone. Contact with these allowed elements is not required.

What is constituted as the inside face of the Field perimeter, is the top of perimeter consider inside face?

Cases (assume all cases the parked robot satisfy all other requirement of SC4 except section A part b)

1. The robot is in the park zone only contact the top of the perimeter.
2. The robot is in the park zone contact inside face of the field perimeter and top of the perimeter.
3. The robot is in the park zone contact inside face of the field perimeter, top of the perimeter and the outfacing perimeter.
4. The robot is in the park zone not contacting anything but has parts extended outside of the perimeter.

Scenario: Team A violate rule <SG4> after their third match by causing a Block to leave the playing field.

What is the ruling if this is the team's first time with an <SG4> violation?

What is the ruling if this is the team's second time with an <SG4> violation?

What is the ruling if this is the team's third time with an <SG4> violation?

What is the ruling if the Block leave the field during autonomous period?

<SG3> a states: "No part of the Robot may exceed an overall height of 22" at any point during the Match (must always be able to fit within a hypothetical 22" x 22" x 22" cubic sizing box)."

Is the "overall height" with reference to the Floor or to the lowest point on the Robot? Also, does it rotate with the Robot? I.e., does the hypothetical cube need to remain in contact with the Floor, and can it rotate such that the bottom plane isn't parallel with the Floor?

The confusion behind this rule comes from the change in Figure SC4-2 between Game Manuals V0.1 (left image) and V0.2 (right image). Some teams think that the Figure was updated because "overall height" is with reference to the field tiles. However, clause <SG3b> which specifies this was deleted in the in Game Manual V0.2. Figure SC4-2 from Game Manual V0.2 also has the Robots on an angle suggesting that the hypothetical cube rotates with the Robot.

Our team is thinking about a design that would extend into the low Target without touching the switch. We would like to confirm whether this is legal. The action in question is shown in the following image: img

We couldn't find any rules disallowing it, although the manual does clearly state that the robot should never come in contact with the switch. As long as there is absolutely no robot contact with the switch, would this be considered legal?

<SC4>

<SC4>

Hello GDC thank you for your tireless work so far this season! We've seen two different interpretations of SC4 / SC1 in our region:

1. Anytime a switch meets the description in SC4 the teams should receive credit for that switch being cleared (even if it later becomes uncleared and doesn't end the match cleared).
2. A switch only counts if the switch is in a cleared position after the match ends.

Based on other scoring rules, we can see either as reasonable and justified. Which is correct?

<SC6> ***At league this past week we had a robot that would shoot the ball into the goal and it would miss occasionally hitting the target and go back into their loader. They would then use their flywheel to push the ball in. The robot touched the ball as it pushed it the entire way through goal. The robot was contacting the ball through its journey into the goal.

**I took this to mean this is score impacting because according to SC3 below-- a scored goal is once a ball is no longer in contact with a robot and has fully passed through the target. I also conferred with our REC rep who was at league to make sure my interpretation was correct and he agreed with me. ***

SC3--An Alliance Scores a Goal once a Ball is no longer in contact with a Robot and has fully passed through a Target (i.e., from the “outside" of the Goal Wall structure into the “inside” of the Goal Wall).----

**** However- as I read on it says an addendum under SC4 of---don't over think this rule---- and there is no restriction on what type of robot action, mechanism, strategy or technique is used to score balls or clear switches. Which I think leaves some gray area as to is pushing considered a technique or strategy??? (See reference to SC4 below) **** We have some new teams who designed a Clawbot for this and I am afraid this may become a bigger issue at our league as they want to push the ball into the goal and drop it too. ** So clarification on if the robot is pushing a ball through the target/goal with a shooter, arm, flywheel, or another mechanism from their robot and the robot is still contacting the ball as it is going through goals is this illegal????

I believe what is trying to be said above in SC3 is that students are to engineer or program a solution that would make it so the ball is to not be touching both robot an goal to be considered scored, but the over thinking rule and part of SC4 leaves some gray area and the rule open to some debate on if this is strategy or action. Thanks**

<SC4> A Switch is Cleared once it has been struck by a Ball and is no longer parallel with the front face of the Goal Wall. Robots may not Clear Switches by contacting them directly (i.e., without it being part of the process of scoring a Ball through that Target).

Please don’t over-think this rule.

Sometimes a Switch gets Cleared without scoring a Ball through the Target, or a Ball is Scored through a Target but the Switch is not Cleared. That's okay. Switches must be Cleared as part of normal gameplay, and by Balls, not Robots or humans. Beyond that, there are no restrictions on what type of Robot action, mechanism, strategy, or technique is used to Score Balls and Clear Switches.

<SC3>

<SG4>The field is defined as the entire playing Field, being six (6) field tiles wide by eight (8) field tiles long (totaling forty-eight (48) field tiles), including the Field Perimeter. The Pickup Zone is defined as the area of the Floor underneath the Goal Wall, bound by the Field Perimeter and the yellow PVC pipe that runs the length of the Field. The Pickup Zone refers to the Floor itself; it is not a 3-dimensional volume. See <SG6> With these two definitions in mind in either teamwork or skills: • A robot scores a ball through the goal, it lands in the pick up zone, which is part of the field. • Another ball is still on the field “in play” SO.. • A loader cannot load a ball through the loading station or in rapid load until the ball in the pick up zone is picked up and off the field otherwise there would be 3 balls on the defined field. Is this correct? It would be helpful if committee defines if there is any part of the field that considers a ball out of play.

<SG4> Using the Loading Station. Balls Loaded through the Loading Station must meet the following criteria:

1. No more than two (2) Balls may be in play at any one time (i.e., the next Ball should not be Loaded until a previous Ball is either scored or leaves the Field). 2083 - Loaders can load new ball immediately after current ball is Scored

   SG4 seems to support that three balls could be on the field if one of those balls is in the pick up zone

At the end of a finals match recently, a robot capable of throwing a two balls at once launched balls before the buzzer. One ball went fully through the top goal, one ball went through the bottom goal, but not fully. If a straight edge across the face of the goal was used it would have contacted the ball that went through the bottom goal, but it did stay in this position after the match and the majority of the ball was through the goal. The top switch had been cleared earlier in the game, but the bottom switch had not. In the process of this final two ball shot, the switch was pinned between the two balls after the match at a 45 degree angle. Again, this was the final state of the match.

Per the most the game manual: <SC3> An Alliance Scores a Goal once a Ball is no longer in contact with a Robot and has fully passed through a Target (i.e., from the “outside" of the Goal Wall structure into the “inside” of the Goal Wall).

A. Ball that passes through a Target and then bounces back out into the playing Field does not count as a Scored Ball, and the Ball remains in play.

<SC4> A Switch is Cleared once it has been struck by a Ball and is no longer parallel with the front face of the Goal Wall. Robots may not Clear Switches by contacting them directly (i.e., without it being part of the process of scoring a Ball through that Target).

My expectations for this situation is:

1 - The ball that passed through top goal counts as a goal as it fully went through the goal.

2 - The switch is considered cleared as it ended the match no longer being parallel with the front face of the goal wall per SC4.

3 - The bottom goal does not count as it still had a small portion of the ball that had not fully passed the plane of the goal established by its border and a straight edge going across would have touched the ball. The ball has not fully passed through the goal per SC3.

Please detemine if this is the correct interpretation.

If this is the correct interpretation, please define passing through the goal in more detail for this static end of game occurence? If a straight edge across the more forward 2x plates that create the border of the goal count as the goal plane for this situation or is it the 2x plates that are further back? Not to be too specific, but I am sure a situation where this difference determines an outcome will inevitably occur.

However, Q&A 2081 states If a Scored Ball gets stuck inside the Goal Wall structure and does not make it to the Pickup Zone, a referee must free it by carefully reaching into the Goal Wall. If this action takes place the ball that has not fully passed through the goal is likely to fall. If the second ball that is teetering then falls, is this ball scored as well?

If neither is correct, could you please explain how an end of game situation like this should be scored. I would also expect the possibility of the balls falling during inspection of this situation. What would be the correct procedure if the balls fell after the match ended and prior to touching the balls during inspection of a close call that was not visually obvious?

The tournament software used to score Skills Matches asks the scoring referee to input the number of "Rings Scored" and the number of "Top Rings Scored". However, we have experienced some confusion regarding this at a local competition because, while the wording of "Rings Scored" suggests that the total number of red rings that are scored on a stake (including the top rings) should be entered, Note 1 of <SC4> states that "A Ring that is considered a Top Ring does not also receive points for being Scored on a Stake; i.e., that Ring is worth 3 points, not a total of '3 + 1' points". This would mean that the number entered under "Rings Scored" should not include top rings, and the top rings should be counted completely separately under "Top Rings Scored".

For example, in a Driving Skills Match, Robot A has scored a total of 5 red rings on a mobile goal and 3 red rings on another mobile goal. No other rings, red or blue, are scored on any other stakes. How should this be scored?

• 8 Rings Scored and 2 Top Rings Scored
• 6 Rings Scored and 2 Top Rings Scored

per <sc4> Since a switch is scored when it "is no longer parallel with the front face of the Goal Wall"

Q- Would a ball touching the switch mean it no longer being parallel? Such as in the image on QA 2152

The specific positioning and state of the ball may or may not cause the switch to move by tiny amounts since it would need to overcome the force of the switch rubber bands. Therfore it is hard to surmise which case it would be with eyes alone.

I am asking this as a coach and an event provider.

Out of the box the pulley rubber that is used to hold the switches are new and tight. A ball rolled onto the lower switch may not cause the switch to clear. A ball launched to the top switches has a very high probability of bouncing off. After being used for some time the pulley rubber stretches and switches are much easier to clear. Teams in their facility will therefore have very easy to clear switches and events that do not use all of their equipment regularly will have either all tight switches or a random combination of loose and tight switches. This will be the case at worlds also.

As an event provider I have seen new fields cause some very low scores because teams are not used to them but I don't want to figure out how to stretch out all these pulleys. As a coach I can't switch out pulleys every week to make sure that teams are getting an accurate indication of robot performance.

What is the force intended to have a switch cleared? Is it meant to be radically different? I know there are field variations but in this one could cause confusion at events and I want to be able to point to a Q&A.

<SC4>

Per <SC4> a switch is cleared once it has been struck by a ball and is no longer parallel with the front face of the goal wall. If a switch is cleared and then through normal game play the switch returns to the uncleared position where it remains till the end of the match, per <SC1> scoring statuses are evaluated after the match ends should the switch be evaluated based on the final position, even though <SC7>states that rapid relay is designed to be scored in real time.

Example: A ball becomes wedged in the switch, without fully passing through the target, holding the switch in a partially flipped position. The ball is later dislodged by a robot and falls back into the field, which causes the switch to return to its starting position, and is untouched till the end of the match.

How should cleared switches be scored with respect to <SC1> and <SC7>?