Robotics Education & Competition Foundation
Inspiring students, one robot at a time.
This Q&A is now read-only

Official Q&A: VRC 2018-2019: Turning Point

Usage Guidelines All Questions

231: Blocking Opponent Shots, Vertical Expansion Limit.


2381C
3-Feb-2019

Hi Again,

This is the second question that I have been asked to rephrase and repost.

The game manual states, in <SG2a> that "Once the match begins, a robot which is contacting the expansion zone may expand vertically with no height limit. However, once fully outside the expansion zone (ie, no longer contact it), the robot must return to a height limit of 18" tall." The follow-up info also states that <A robot which interferes with gameplay as a result of violating this rule, such as scoring a high flag or blocking a launched ball while outside the expansion zone, will result in a disqualification, whether the interference is match affecting or not.> The game manual also states in <G11> that <you can't force an opponent into a penalty. intentional strategies that cause an opponent to violate a rule are not permitted, and will not result in an infraction on the opposing alliance.>

The issue then follows: if a robot is designed to block opponent shots, say by expanding horizontally over the opponent robot, and the opponent robot fires a shot, causing the defending robot to expand over 18", who would be at fault? The game manual states through <G13> that offensive robots get the "benefit of the doubt". In this instance, the defending robot is not actively seeking to break the rules, and has taken reasonable measures to prevent this (through proper bracing, good build quality, etc. etc.) If the offensive robot however, then decided to shoot the ball and cause the defending robot to violate the 18" limit (perhaps through a powerful launcher), who would be at fault? The offensive robot could have driven somewhere else and fired the shot, and if they had fired the shot with the intention to cause a rule violation, would also receive scrutiny from <G11>.

Answered by Game Design Committee

If a robot is designed to block opponent shots, say by expanding horizontally over the opponent robot, and the opponent robot fires a shot, causing the defending robot to expand over 18", who would be at fault?

In this hypothetical situation, <G13> would apply, quoted here for reference with a portion bolded for emphasis.

<G13> Offensive Robots get the “benefit of the doubt”. In the case where referees are forced to make a judgment call regarding a destructive interaction between a defensive and offensive Robot, or an interaction which results in a questionable rules violation, the referees will err on the side of the offensive Robot.

The Robot which is attempting to block the opponent would be considered the defensive Robot, and would be considered in violation of <SG2>.

Furthermore, if the intent of such a "blocker" mechanism (as defined in your question) is to prevent launched Balls from reaching their intended target, and it extends past 18" tall when it succeeds in preventing a launched Ball from reaching its intended target, then the following portion <SG2> would likely apply on its own, even without <G13>.

Note: A Robot which interferes with gameplay as a result of violating this rule, such as Toggling a High Flag or blocking a launched Ball while outside of the Expansion Zone, will result in a Disqualification, whether the interference is Match Affecting or not.

We would advise that Teams attempting this type of strategy design their Robot such that they minimize the possibility of any edge cases such as these.