RobotEvents.com
Robotics Education & Competition Foundation
Inspiring students, one robot at a time.

This Q&A is Read Only.

Official Q&A: VRC 2023-2024: Over Under

Usage Guidelines All Questions

Clarification on Q&A 1777 For Determining When Two Triballs Are Past the Field Perimeter

KaBao McCarver (Event Partner)
18-Dec-2023

<SG6> Clarification on Q&A 1777 How do I judge if a Match Load maneuver is unsafe?

In "2: The Probably Fine'' it states "Two Drive Team Members loading in rapid succession, such that two incoming Match Loads (or hands) are never past the field perimeter at the same time." However the clip of matchloading shows (from the angle it was shot) one team member with a second triball that is slightly past the perimeter of the field as the first is being match loaded. The maneuver appears to be safe and rehearsed.

Under "3: The Bad", the fourth point states, "Two Drive Team Members loading in rapid succession, such that two incoming Triballs (or hands) are past the field perimeter at the same time, or such that an error made by one person could cause the other to be hit by a Triball / mechanism"

Assuming teams are otherwise demonstrating care and safety, did the GDC mean for any part of the second tribal that breaks the plane of the field perimeter to be a violation? Or should this only apply to second triballs that are mostly/fully past the field perimeter? I have seen multiple interpretations enforced.

  1. Even when teams were match loading triballs one at a time, if so much as a corner of the second triball broke the plane of the field perimeter momentarily, an SG6 violation was issued to those teams because two triballs were "past the field perimeter at the same time".
  2. Provided teams had clearly demonstrated safe match loading practices, partial, brief, unintentional breach of the field perimeter by a second triball, was given the benefit of the doubt.
  3. Since the wording is specific to two drive team members, this is only applicable when two team members are match loading and there is a safety risk because of miscommunication.

The first interpretation makes the situation in the photo illegal. The second interpretation seems to fall more in line with "not overthinking" Q&A 1777 and the second red box of SG6 in the context of the match load bar contact. The third interpretation does not apply to a single team member handling two triballs provided each triball is still being match loaded into/onto the robot one at a time.
img

SG6  
Answered by committee
18-Jan-2024

The first interpretation makes the situation in the photo illegal. The second interpretation seems to fall more in line with "not overthinking" Q&A 1777 and the second red box of SG6 in the context of the match load bar contact.

We would tend to agree with the second interpretation and your reasoning here. It should be the Team's responsibility to make abundantly clear that no Violation is occurring, not the Head Referee's responsibility to watch for imperceptibly small instantaneous moments and invisible planes.

With that being said, the example in the photo would be a good opportunity to provide a preventative comment to the Team during the Match, e.g. "you're getting pretty close to crossing the wall". As a general rule of thumb, when multiple repeated Minor Violations escalate to a Major Violation, there is an expectation that the Team has been warned for the Minor occurrences and given an opportunity to rectify their actions.

  1. Since the wording is specific to two drive team members, this is only applicable when two team members are match loading and there is a safety risk because of miscommunication.

Yes, the safety-related verbiage in Q&A 1777 was specifically referring to two Drive Team Members. However, this scenario would also fall under the "one at a time" guidelines listed in Q&A 1778, even for a single Drive Team Member.