Q&A

This question is asked on behalf of a fellow VEX Forum user.

This is a follow-up to Q&A 608 and, to a lesser extent, Q&A 601. The ruling given here may also be relevant to a ruling on Q&A 597, whenever one is issued.

The relevant portions of <SG8> are repeated below:

Possession is limited. Robots may not have greater‑than‑momentary Possession of more than three (3) Balls of its opposing Alliance's color at once. When two Robots from the same Alliance are working in tandem and blocking Balls, those Robots may not Possess a total of more than six (6) Balls of its opposing Alliance's color at once.

Robots that violate this rule must stop all Robot actions except for those actions that are attempting to remove the excess Ball.

Suppose a Robot is in Possession of more than three (3) Balls of its opposing Alliance's color for a momentary period of time before the excess Ball is ejected.

Which of the following interpretations, if either, is correct?

• The Robot must immediately stop all Robot actions except for those actions that are attempting to remove the excess Ball as soon as Possession of the excess Ball begins, even though the Possession of the excess Ball ultimately proves to be momentary in total duration.

• Because the Possession of the excess Ball is momentary, the Robot does not need to stop all Robot actions except for those actions that are attempting to remove the excess Ball. That is, the Robot may continue scoring or performing other actions as desired while momentarily Possessing the excess Ball. By extension, this interpretation would imply that the Robot must stop all Robot actions except for those actions that are attempting to remove the excess Ball only after the Possession of the excess Ball becomes greater-than-momentary.

QA 601 asked a similar question regarding to the definition of momentary already, so I will start on the other part.

<SG8> Possession is limited. Robots may not have greater-than-momentary Possession of more than three (3) Balls of its opposing Alliance’s color at once. When two Robots from the same Alliance are working in tandem and blocking Balls, those Robots may not Possess a total of more than six (6) Balls of its opposing Alliance’s color at once.

Robots that violate this rule must stop all Robot actions except for those actions that are attempting to remove the excess Ball.

Minor violations of this rule that are not Match Affecting will receive a warning. Match Affecting offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the Head Referee’s discretion.

a) Is it a correct interpretation that the first and second sentence stands concurrently, which means that each robot may not possess more than 3 opponent balls at any time? Or is the first sentence only applied when two robots are NOT working in tandem and blocking balls? Does the second sentence only apply when blocking balls, or do they apply when there are balls inside robots as well?

In other words, are there any circumstances where one robot is allowed to possess more than 3 opponent balls at any given point?

b) Is it a correct interpretation that if the ball has been determined to have been greater-than-momentary possessed by the other team, then a violation has occurred, regardless of whether the other robot "stop all Robot actions except for those actions that are attempting to remove the excess Ball"? Or in the other word, is the actions after being determined in possession relevant in determining whether a violation has occurred?

c) In the case where there are multiple momentary possession of same/different opponent balls, do these add up to count as a "greater-than-momentary Possession"? If so, under what time frame would they need to be under?

Thanks,

This question is posted based on a VEX Forum thread and on behalf of a frequent volunteer in Arizona.

According to <SG8>:

Robots may not have greater-than-momentary Possession of more than three (3) Balls of its opposing Alliance’s color at once.

Since "momentary" is not defined, would the following scenario be permitted within the rules?

Red Robot approaches a Goal containing one or more blue Balls while currently in Possession of three blue Balls. Red robot descores the Balls in the Goal, so that it is momentarily holding more than three blue Balls. Then, the Robot immediately ejects the additional blue Balls, so that the Possession of greater than 3 blue Balls is around 5 seconds long.

Is there any rule-of-thumb that referees should follow when considering similar scenarios?

SG8: Robots may not have greater-than-momentary Possession of more than three (3) Balls of its opposing Alliance’s color at once. When two Robots from the same Alliance are working in tandem and blocking Balls, those Robots may not Possess a total of more than six (6) Balls of its opposing Alliance’s color at once.

SG8 establishes a Robot may not have Possession of more than 3 of the opposing alliance’s balls at one time. The definition of Possession is the following:

Possession – A Robot is considered to be Possession a Ball if a Ball is in an unscored position and either of the following criteria are met:

• The Robot is carrying, holding or controlling the movement of a Ball such that if the Robot changes direction, the Ball will move with the Robot. Pushing/plowing Balls is not considered Possession, however using concave portions of your Robot to control the movement of Balls is considered Possession.

• The Robot is blocking the opposing Robot’s access to Balls that are located between Goals along the field perimeter.* Blocking access to Balls is considered Possessing those Balls only if the opposing Robot is attempting to make contact with those Balls from close range* AND those Balls are at least partially within the width of the Goals between the Goals. Robots on the same Alliance working in tandem to block access to Balls would share the Possession of the Balls. See <SG8> for Possession limits.

Emphasis added. A wallbot that has sectioned off a portion of the field does not meet the criteria for possession in the first bullet point as the wallbot (assuming it is stationary) is not carrying, holding, or controlling the movement of a ball. The focus of this question centers around the second bullet point.

There are two conditions under the second point. The “and” qualifier necessitates that both conditions must be met in order to be considered in possession of a ball.

The first condition is that the opposing robot has to be attempting to make contact with a ball from close range and the second is that a ball is partially between the width of two goals along the field perimeter. The second condition is easy to interpret. The first condition is likely up to the discretion of the Head Referee as to what is considered “from close range.” Please review the following scenarios below so that there is precedent for Head Referees to base their decisions upon.

Scenario 1

An image of scenario 1 can be found at the bottom of this post. A blue robot has deployed a stationary wall in the corner. The wall is tall enough so that no robot can reach over the wall and make contact with balls. A red ball is directly behind the blue wall. A red robot is directly on the other side of the wallbot. The Red robot is attempting to make contact with the red ball and is within close range of the red ball. However, the red ball is clearly not between the width of the goals along the field perimeter. Therefore, the blue robot is not in possession of the red ball. Is this interpretation of scenario 1 correct?

Scenario 2

An image of scenario 2 can be found at the bottom of this post. A blue robot has deployed a stationary wall in the corner. The wall is tall enough so that no robot can reach over the wall and make contact with balls. A red ball is clearly between the width of two goals along the field perimeter. A red robot is on the other side of the wall but is at least a full tile’s length away from the ball. The Red robot is attempting to make contact with the red ball. However, the red robot is not within close range of the red ball. Therefore, the blue robot is not in possession of the red ball. Is this interpretation of scenario 2 correct?

Scenario 3

An image of scenario 3 can be found at the bottom of this post. A blue robot has deployed a stationary wall in the corner. The wall is tall enough so that no robot can reach over the wall and make contact with balls. A red ball is clearly between the width of two goals along the field perimeter and a red robot is directly on the other side of the wall. The red robot is attempting to make contact with the red ball. Even though the red robot is unsuccessful in making contact with the red ball, it is within close range and attempting to make contact. Therefore, the blue robot is in possession of the red ball as both conditions are met. Is this interpretation of scenario 3 correct?

<SC7><SC5><SG7>

How would the robots in the midfield at end of autonomous period be counted? Shown in the picture illustrated below with 2 Blue robots and 1 Red robot. One Blue robot was contacting the midfield goal and also pushed the other red robot that parked first. Another blue robot crossed the double autonomous line but entered the midfield.

Per SC5b. A yellow Pin Placed in the Midfield is Owned by the Alliance that ends the Match with a greater number of Robots in the Midfield. As this is not end of the match, yellow pin shall not be counted even with 2 parked Blue vs 1 parked Red.

Per SC7a, Points for ending the Autonomous Period in the Midfield are not included in the calculation of an Alliance’s score for the purposes of determining the Autonomous Bonus. Thus the Yellow pin shall not be counted as owned by Blue Alliance.

Per SG7, <SG7> Don’t cross the Autonomous Line, and don’t interfere with your opponents’ actions. Are all 3 robots violating?

Per SG8, <SG8> Engage with the Midfield and/or Autonomous Line during the Autonomous Period at your own risk. In this case, even if the Blue robot entered midfield and pushed the Red robot that has parked ealier time, Per SC8d, no penalty shall be given to Blue Alliance.

Result 1: No violation, midfield is allowed and autonomous line cross is allowed. With 2 parked blue vs 1 parked Red, Blue allicance won auton and also owned the yellow pin.

Result 2: No violation, midfield is allowed and autonomous line cross is allowed. Yellow pin is not owned by either Alliance. However, with 2 parked blue vs 1 Red, Blue alliance won the auton bonus points.

Result 3: All 3 robots violate SG7, thus no Auton bonus will be awarded.

Result 4: IF the Red robot did not enter the midfield but only the 2 Blue robots, then Red Alliance will receive the 12 AP, given Blue Alliance violating SG7

Could you clarify the robots in midfield at end of Autonomous Period, not end of match?

In a “Ring Rush” a robot (let’s say a blue robot for clarity) rapidly goes toward the eight rings on the autonomous line -- gameplay elements intended to be utilized by either Alliance during the Autonomous Period. The robot pushes the top two red rings off the two lower blue rings so they can intake the two blue rings. In doing so, the blue robot pushes the four rings on the top of the stack (two blue and two red) into or further into the opposing alliance side. These rings can travel at least one ring diameter into the red side of the field. See photo sequence for clarification.

In Q&A 2066 the committee said (with emphasis added):

Pushing a Ring (or Mobile Goal) that starts on your side (or on) the Autonomous Line to the other side could result in a <G17> Violation if that Ring or Mobile Goal interferes with the opponent's autonomous routine.

In Q&A 2421 the committee said:

Knocking over a stack of Rings that begins on the Autonomous Line is still legal even if it results in an opponent picking up the "wrong" color of Ring during the Autonomous Period. It's part of the risk described in rule <SG9> (assuming you meant <SG8> here). If you move an object all the way from your side to theirs and it clearly messes up their autonomous routine, it should probably be an <SG7> penalty and you should likely be ineligible to receive all or part of the Autonomous Bonus and/or an AWP.

Again, for the sake of clarity, assume that the four rings end up on the other side of the autonomous line a significant distance from where they started (as in the pictures). Question 1: What constitutes “messing up” or “interfering with” an opponent’s autonomous routine to the level of an <SG7>> violation? Obviously taking rings from them is okay, but is putting several rings from the autonomous line into their path interfering (assuming the opposing alliance robot goes to that part of the field)?

<SG8> c. says

Intentional, strategic, repeated, or egregious offenses may still be deemed a Violation of <G12> , <G13> , <G14> , <SG7> , <G1> and/or <S1> at the Head Referee’s discretion.

Question 2: Since one of the incidental benefits of pushing those four rings into the opposing alliances side is that it does interfere to some degree with their autonomous routine, does that make it inherently intentional and/or strategic?

As a number of teams are using a mechanism that does this, a clarification of the legality of this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

A question about a potential situation was asked this past weekend at an event and the way the rules are currently written, it could be answered in two different ways.

For Reference:

<G15> You can’t force an opponent into a penalty. Intentional strategies that cause an opponent to break a rule are not permitted, and will not result in a Violation for the opposing Alliance.

Violation Notes: In most cases, if a Team causes their opponent to break a rule, the Head Referee will simply not enforce the penalty on that opponent, and it will be considered a Minor Violation for the guilty Team. However, if the forced situation becomes Match Affecting in favor of the guilty Team, it will be considered a Major Violation.

<SG7> Don’t cross the Autonomous Line. During the Autonomous Period, Robots may not contact foam tiles, Scoring Objects, or Field Elements which are on the opposing Alliance’s side of the Autonomous Line.

Note: Scoring Objects, Wall Stakes, and portions of the Ladder that contact or are positioned above the Autonomous Line are not considered to be on either side, and may be utilized by either Alliance during the Autonomous Period.

Violation Notes: • All Violations of this rule (Major or Minor) will result in the Autonomous Bonus being awarded to the opposing Alliance. See SG8b for a potential exception caused by Autonomous Line interactions. • Intentional, strategic, or egregious Violations, such as intentional contact with an opposing Robot while contacting the foam tiles on the opposing side of the Autonomous Line, will be considered Major Violations.

<SG8> Engage with the Autonomous Line at your own risk. Any Robot who engages with Scoring Objects and/or Wall Stakes on the Autonomous Line should be aware that opponent Robots may also choose to do the same. Per G11 and G12, Teams are responsible for the actions of their Robots at all times.

During the Autonomous Period, when Robots from opposing Alliances are both engaged with the same Scoring Object or Wall Stake:

a. If a possible <G13> Violation occurs (e.g., damage, Entanglement, or tipping over), a judgment call will be made by the Head Referee within the context of G13 and G14 (just as it would if the interaction had occurred during the Driver Controlled Period).

b. Incidental Violations of <SG7> will not be penalized, nor will they result in an automatic loss of the Autonomous Bonus as described by G12. However, this allowance only applies when opposing Robots are interacting with the same element.

c. Intentional, strategic, repeated, or egregious offenses may still be deemed a Violation of G12, G13, G14, SG7, G1, and / or S1 at the Head Referee’s discretion.

These gameplay elements are intended to be utilized by either Alliance during the Autonomous Period. This will inevitably result in Robot-on-Robot interactions, both incidental and intentional. The overarching intent of SG8 is for the vast majority of these interactions to result in no rule Violations and/or penalties for either Alliance, just as no rules Violations occur in 99% of Driver Controlled interactions.

The Situation: RED1 and BLUE1 both interact with the mobile goal positioned on the autonomous line. RED1 is the stronger robot and pulls the mobile goal and BLUE1 across the autonomous line. BLUE1 crosses, but per SG8b, BLUE1 is not penalized as RED1 and BLUE1 were interacting with the same element. However as the autonomous period continues, BLUE1 releases the goal clamp and continues with it's autonomous program. While the program is continuing, BLUE1 crosses over the autonomous line again, this time not interacting with the same element as RED1 or RED2.

The Question: How should the second autonomous line cross of BLUE2 be called?

Potential Answers:

1. BLUE1 should have the protections of G15 and SG8b as the interaction with the same element as RED1 (autonomous line mobile goal) caused their (BLUE1) autonomous program to run off course. RED1 cannot force BLUE1 into a violation per G15, so this situation is a no-call scenario and the autonomous period is scored as normal.

2. BLUE should forfeit autonomous due to violating SG7 when they crossed the autonomous line a second time. Performing a goal/ring rush is a strategy that has risks associated with it and teams should account for those risks in their programming strategy.

Thank you for your time, -Cowboy

If in the elimination matches, in the act of scoring a cap on a pole, the cap leaves the field either due to defense or driver error, should that result in a disqualification for the robot attempting to score the cap? At a recent local tournament, the rules were set in such a way that if you had dropped a cap off the field at any point during the qualifier matches and then dropped a cap during the eliminations, you would be instantly disqualified regardless of if the offense was match affecting or not. Is this a proper interpretation of the rule sg<8> or not? Thanks

<G17><SG7><SG8>

Hi!

Q and A https://events.vex.com/V5RC/2024-2025/QA/2066 asks a question regarding sending Rings from one side of the field to the other and those interferring with the opponents autonomous.

The response that was given was "Pushing a Ring (or Mobile Goal) that starts on your side (or on) the Autonomous Line to the other side could result in a <G17> Violation if that Ring or Mobile Goal interferes with the opponent's autonomous routine."

To me, this means means that if for example the Blue Alliance grabs the bottom Rings on their side of the autonomous line, from the middle stack on the Negative side (which are blue), but in the process slightly knocks over the Blue Rings on the top of the middle stack on the other side of the auton line, which the Red Alliance then intakes, then this would automatically be an autonomous win for Red. This is pictured in the photo below with 2145Z who is on the Red Alliance.

Would this be the correct intepretation of the rule? If so, what are teams supposed to do in order to not knock over the Rings, and at what point does <SG8>, which states "Engage with the Autonomous Line at your own risk. Any Robot who engages with Scoring Objects and/or Wall Stakes on the Autonomous Line should be aware that opponent Robots may also choose to do the same. Per <G11> and <G12>, Teams are responsible for the actions of their Robots at all times." come into play?

Another example I want to bring up is the Ring rush that was originally developed by our team, 360X. The Ring rush is designed to grab the both of the bottom Rings that start on our side of the autonomus line, but still touching it (those Rings are our color), before the other alliance is able to get to the stack. <SG8>, again regards engaging with the autonomous line, and the note in <SG7> which states "Note: Scoring Objects, Wall Stakes, and portions of the Ladder that contact or are positioned above the Autonomous Line are not considered to be on either side, and may be utilized by either Alliance during the Autonomous Period." essentially saying that either Alliance is allowed to grab any Rings from that stack. Thus, we have this Ring rush to ensure that we grab the Rings before the other Alliance gets to the stack and knocks it over, which is bound to happen even if all you are trying to do is get your own Rings, something permitted by <G17>.

A photo is attached here of the stack after the Ring rush:

I have a few questions related to this. First, is knocking over the stack like we did illegal (and thus an auton forfeit)? Second, if knocking over the stack is legal, but then the other Alliance intakes one of the Rings of our color, is that then illegal (and again, an auton forfeit)? Third, I have the same questions regarding the stack on the right in the video which starts completely on the other Alliances side of the auton line, and is not neutral in any sense.

And again, I pose the question, if the other team intakes the wrong color Ring as a result of us touching the middle stack, what are we supposed to do in order to get those Rings?

According to Sg8 balls can not be shot at caps on posts  So let's say blue has a scored cap on a post and red comes over and shoots a ball and the cap falls off, will the cap be placed back on the post scored for blue due to the violation?  

<SG7>

<G17>

If, during autonomous a Red robot were to cause a Ring that started on the Red side (not on the autonomous line) to cross into the Blue side of the autonomous line, is that action solely enough to trigger an <SG7> violation? For example, perhaps neither Blue robot runs an autonomous and therefore the "Interfering with an opponent’s Autonomous routine" clause is not applicable? Or perhaps both Blue robots do run autons but the ring that crossed over to the Blue side has no impact on Blue's autons.

For example, SG8b, which is is referenced in SG7's red text says:

Incidental Violations of <SG7> will not be penalized, nor will they not result in an automatic loss of the Autonomous Bonus as described by <G12>

Likewise, would referees then need to track these incidents and potentially apply the "repeated" logic mentioned in SG8c (which is not referenced by SG7) in a "3-strikes and then it becomes a violation" approach?

<G12> All rules still apply in the Autonomous Period.Teams are responsible for the actions of their Robots at all times, including during the Autonomous Period. Any Violations committed during the Autonomous Period that affect the outcome of the Autonomous Bonus—whether they are Match Affecting or not—will result in the Autonomous Bonus being automatically awarded to the opposing Alliance.

Q&A 1694:

If their score is 0-5 points higher than their opponent's, the infraction has affected the outcome of the Autonomous Period and the Autonomous Bonus should be awarded to their opponent as described in rule <G12>.

Scenario:

During the Autonomous Period, Red enters Blue Goal while scoring 1 Red Triball, breaking <SG8> (d). At the end of the Autonomous Period, Red is ahead by 2 points. Q&A 1694 states that the Autonomous Bonus should be awarded to Blue. No other rules are broken, and Red wins this Match by 1 point.

Should the Red Robot that violated <SG8> be DQ'ed? One could argue that their illegal action should not be in the Match Affecting calculations, since they caused the score difference to go from +0 to +6 for Blue.

Is it an option for the head referee to clarify expectations of SG8 before qualification matches begin? This would be in reference to the following - The intent of this rule is to prevent Robots from “knocking” Caps out of the field to remove them from Posts. Any strategic, intentional, or repeated removal of Game Objects from the field would be considered a violation of this rule.

Examples of clarification would be-

1. If your robot leverages a Pole scored Cap on the bottom side, from the field side only, this would be considered a violation of the note listed above. Reason for this is due to leverage from the field side only would result in knocking a Cap out of the field in most cases. Teams executing this move and "knocking" Caps out of the field, in this manner, will receive one warning and then be logged.
2. It is not possible to assume the intent of a robot to correctly de-score a Cap from a Pole in all scenarios. With that said, a robot that is correctly attempting to take possession of a Cap to bring it back to the field drops it out of the field will be notified that multiple attempts in that nature will be viewed as "knocking" Caps out of play.

My reasoning for asking for this clarification is due to volunteering as a referee or emcee at multiple tournaments this year and having teams knock two or more Caps out of the field and saying that they were trying to bring it back into the field. In clarifying the head referees expectations, this lowers the potential of alliances disagreeing with how the match is called.

It is not my belief that the game designers desired to see the Poles empty at the end of matches. I have not seen a robot be able to score a Cap on a Pole anywhere near the same time it takes to knock that scored Cap out of the field.

Per https://events.vex.com/VRC/2023-2024/QA/1694

Any Violations committed during the Autonomous Period that affect the outcome of the Autonomous Bonus—whether they are Match Affecting or not—will result in the Autonomous Bonus being automatically awarded to the opposing Alliance.

Specifically considering SG8 in autonomous:

In either case, the SG8 Violation should be recorded for consideration at the end of the Match to determine whether or not the Violation was Match Affecting and should receive a Minor or Major Violation. Match Affecting can only be determined at the end of a Match once the scores have been calculated.

Per the flowchart in Figure 3 of the Game Manual, how would repeated minor violations of SG8 in autonomous be considered? Would the consequences of multiple minor violations of SG8 in autonomous be covered by the consequences outlined in Q&A 1694 above or could multiple minor violations of SG8 in autonomous result in a major violation and automatic match DQ? Would this decision be up to the head referee's discretion per the definition of violation in the game manual?

Multiple Minor Violations within a Match or tournament may escalate to a Major Violation at the Head Referee’s discretion.

Thank you for your consideration of this specific circumstance.

SG8 states you may not enter an opponent's goal unless they are double zoned. This includes the autonomous period.

<SG8> Stay out of your opponent’s Goal unless they are Double-Zoned. During the time when an Alliance meets the definition of Double-Zoning, opposing Robots are permitted to “break the plane” of the Double-Zoning Alliance’s Goal, such as to remove Triballs.

The definition of the Goal in the manual is defined specifically for scoring:

For the purposes of scoring, the “Goal” refers specifically to the three-dimensional volume bounded by a vertical projection of the outermost PVC pipes onto the field and below the surface of the net.

The question posed pertains to the definition of entering an opponent's goal. Is going directly above the PVC pipe on the sides of the goals without going underneath the net considered entering the goal? This would be entering the "triangle" like area shown in the picture, above the pvc pipe. There have been slightly different interpretations of this rule at competitions.:

1. The definition referenced earlier is only meant to be used for scoring, and this action is not entering the goal itself, therefore it is not a violation. (A robot is only in violation of SG8 if they go below the net or PVC pipe)
2. If they are going over the pvc pipe low enough to be underneath the goal net, and therefore entering the "triangle" portion referenced earlier, it is considered a violation, even if they do not go under the net itself.

<SG8>

SG8 states that "opposing Robots are allowed to “break the plane” of the Double-Zoning Alliance’s Goal, to descore Triballs." This question doesn't relate to entering the goal, instead actions while exiting the goal.

The timing of descoring a triball as the double zoned robot returns to the offensive side and the allowance ends. If a robot "broke the plane" while opposing team is double-zoned to descore triballs, at the point the opposing team comes back to the offensive side, what if a triball is descored as they are exiting the goal? How is this handled? Is the triball put back into the goal?

Thanks for clarification, my students are building with descoring in mind and have asked me this question, I could not find an answer on forums or Q&A. <SG8>

<SG8>

Rule SG8 states that "when an Alliance meets the definition of Double-Zoning, opposing Robots are permitted to 'break the plane' of the Double-Zoning Alliance’s Goal"

Point SG8B states that "entering an opponent’s Goal at any other time is prohibited. This includes staying inside of an opponent’s Goal after they end their Double-Zone status."

What would the ruling be in these scenarios:

a) The red alliance is double zoning, and a blue robot enters the red goal to descore. However, when the blue robot enters the goal, the red alliance stops double zoning, and the blue robot descores triballs after the red alliance stops double zoning, but the blue robot had entered the goal while the red allaince was still double zoning.

b) The red alliance is double zoning, and a blue robot enters the red goal to descore. However, when the blue robot enters the goal, the red alliance stops double zoning, and the blue robot attempts to exit the goal, but inadvertedly knocks out a few triballs while exiting.

c) The red alliance is double zoning, and a blue robot enters the red goal to descore. However, when the blue robot enters the goal, the red alliance stops double zoning, and the blue robot attempts to exit the goal, and knocks no triballs out when exiting.

Hello,

This issue came up several times during a recent event in our region. During Autonomous, Blue 1 scores their alliance triball into the red goal, however they break the plane of the goal while scoring, thus violating SG8d.

<SG8d> states that:

Entering an opponent’s Goal is not permitted at any time during the Autonomous Period.

The red alliance does not score any points during the autonomous period, meaning that the illegally scored triball would affect the outcome of autonomous, which would be a violation of G12 as clarified in Q&A #1694.

Q&A #1694 states that:

If their score is 1-5 points higher than their opponent's, the infraction has affected the outcome of the Autonomous Period and the Autonomous Bonus should be awarded to their opponent as described in rule G12.

<G12> states that:

Any Violations committed during the Autonomous Period that affect the outcome of the Autonomous Bonus—whether they are Match Affecting or not—will result in the Autonomous Bonus being automatically awarded to the opposing Alliance.

Also during autonomous, Red 1 crosses the autonomous line, which is a violation of SG9

<SG9> states that:

During the Autonomous Period, Robots may not contact foam tiles, Triballs, or Field Elements on the opposing Alliance’s side of the Neutral Zone, or in the opposite Offensive Zone from which they began the Match.

In the violation notes, it states that

All Violations of this rule (Major or Minor) will result in the Autonomous Bonus being awarded to the opposing Alliance.

The Question is:

In this scenario, who would be awarded the autonomous bonus? Would the blue alliance be awarded the bonus due to the red alliance's violation of SG9? Would the red alliance be awarded the autonomous bouns due to the blue alliance's violations of SG8d and G12? Or, would there be no autonomous bonus awared due to the violation of SG8d and G12 by the blue alliance and the violation of SG9 by the red alliance?

If the answer to the above question is that no autonomous bounus is award to either alliance, would the same logic be able to be applied to other scenarios where the blue alliance violates SG8d and G12 and the red alliance violates some other rule that would award the autonomous bonus to the blue alliance?

Thank you for your time.

During autonomous period, if a robot bumps, touches, or hits an opponent's goal putting their alliance triball into the opponent's goal. Would this be considered a violation of SG8 d.? This rule only applies during the Driver Controlled Period. Entering an opponent’s Goal is not permitted at any time during the Autonomous Period.<SG8>

<SG8>

In a robot skills challenge (both driver and autonamous) what is the appropriate penalty if a team violates SG8?

Scenario 1: The team breaks the plane of the blue goal while pushing in the red alliance triballs. However, this is done in a way where the violation is incidental and accidental, and the team has the ability to score the red alliance triballs even if there was no violation.

Scenario 2: The team breaks the plane of the blue goal with no change of scoring, and the violation has no effect on the score and outcome of the match.

Thank you