RobotEvents.com
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

253: < SG4 > Accidental Ball Possession Limit Exceeded and Remediation Options

Christopher Hallahan (Event Partner)
26-Feb-2019

This is a multi-part question around < SG4 > The Possession limit of balls, and disqualifications.

These questions are related to the "Match Effecting" interpretations of excess ball possession.

< SG4 >Watch your Possession limit. Robots may Possess a maximum of one (1) Cap and two (2) Balls at a time. Note: Robots that interact with High Scored Caps while already Possessing a Cap will undergo additional scrutiny regarding this rule. Minor violations of this rule that do not affect the Match will result in 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.

During recent events as the pace of the game has picked up, it has become fairly common for robots to accidentally ingest more than the two-ball possession limit as the balls bounce around and ricochet into the intake mechanisms. At a recent event a team was disqualified for possessing 4 balls at the end of the match that were never used to score. Since the difference in the final score was 4-points and the two extra balls could have been used to score those 4 points the referee called for the disqualification as the possession was match effecting.

Definition: Part 1: Is there a scenario where accidentally possessing 3 or more balls is considered match effecting even if the balls are never used to score a flag? it has been argued that simply possessing excess balls is match effecting since the robot is now controlling balls that are not available for the opposing alliance to score (effectively "hoarding"). Therefore, If the balls in possession have the potential to score points that are equal to, or greater than the match differential, then should this be considered match effecting? (also similar to the point differential when caps that are knocked out of bounds being a match effecting disqualification)

Remediation Options?: Part 2: If simply exceeding the possession limit is not match effecting (i.e. Part 1), is it then permissible for a team announce to the referee that they are have excess capacity and they intend to safely discharge the excess balls in such a way as to not attempt to score? (either through reversing the intake, or if that isn't possible, discharge the excess balls with the launcher directly and safely into the net while avoiding changing the state of any flag)

Part 3: Finally, if a team does score a flag while unintentionally possessing more than 2 balls, could the team: a. announce to the referee they intend to de-score the illegal flag (that is return the scored flag to its previous state) before scoring additional points so as to make the accidental score impossible to affect the match? b. after scoring the flag, announce to the referee they intend to safely discharge all remaining balls in possession before scoring additional points?

This post is for clarification for future occurrences, and in no way trying to modify a previous ruling.

Thank you!

SG4  
Answered by Game Design Committee

Part 1: Is there a scenario where accidentally possessing 3 or more balls is considered match effecting even if the balls are never used to score a flag?

Yes, for exactly the reason you imply - in a game with neutral Game Objects of a limited quantity, any additional Possession has the potential to limit the opposing Alliance's ability to play the game.

Part 2: If simply exceeding the possession limit is not match effecting (i.e. Part 1), is it then permissible for a team announce to the referee that they are have excess capacity and they intend to safely discharge the excess balls in such a way as to not attempt to score?

Discharging the extra Game Objects would not just be permissible, it would be required. If a Robot comes into Possession of more than the permitted number of Game Objects, then they should immediately attempt to rectify the situation. We would expect that the Head Referee would instruct the Team to do so, not the other way around as proposed here, but the philosophy is the same.

Part 3: Finally, if a team does score a flag while unintentionally possessing more than 2 balls, could the team: a. announce to the referee they intend to de-score the illegal flag (that is return the scored flag to its previous state) before scoring additional points so as to make the accidental score impossible to affect the match? b. after scoring the flag, announce to the referee they intend to safely discharge all remaining balls in possession before scoring additional points?

First, <SG4> does not contain "intentional" or "unintentional" verbiage, so whether they intentionally or unintentionally Possessed the extra Game Object is irrelevant; Toggling the Flag in this situation is a clear-cut violation of <SG4> (see this similar Q&A for more thoughts on this topic).

In general, it is a Team's responsibility to ensure that:

a) Their Robots are designed to mitigate the possibility of controversial rulings (e.g. they cannot Possess more than the permitted Game Object limit), and

b) Their strategies during a Match mitigate the possibility of controversial rulings (e.g. they do not Toggle Flags while Possessing three Balls).

We typically try not to comment on previous rulings (and appreciate that you did not ask us to). However, given the explanations above, the example that you provided is actually a pretty good one to demonstrate these principles.

At a recent event a team was disqualified for possessing 4 balls at the end of the match that were never used to score. Since the difference in the final score was 4-points and the two extra balls could have been used to score those 4 points the referee called for the disqualification as the possession was match effecting.

It is always difficult to provide a blanket ruling without the full context of a Match; however, based on the information given in this snapshot, this would be a correct interpretation of the answer provided above.