<SG6> We have seen a variety of different rulings on the strictness of possession/plowing at different events, often resulting in disqualification. We have a question regarding when a SG6 violation should be called, ruled as a minor violation, or escalated to a major violation.
SG6 States: Possession is limited to two Rings and one Mobile Goal. Robots may not have Possession of more than two (2) Rings at once. Robots may not have Possession of more than (1) Mobile Goal at once. Robots in Violation of this rule must immediately stop all actions except for attempting to remove the excess Scoring Objects.
According to the rule SG6 a robot in violation of the rule can remedy the situation by removing the excess scoring object(s), assuming the robot only removes the excess object(s) and does not continue to play any other aspect of the game.
The red box beneath the rule states: If your Robot is carrying a Mobile Goal, you can’t manipulate other Mobile Goals until you put down the one you’re carrying. Period.(Emphasis Added)
This seems to insinuate the violation is severe when any goal could be considered manipulated. The language feels like it conflicts with a robot's ability to remove a goal to prevent a violation.
Under violation notes it states: Any egregious or clearly intentional Violation by an Alliance who wins the Match will be considered a Major Violation.
This states that actions must be egregious or clearly intentional to be considered a violation.
in Q&A 2304, the answer to possession was stated as:
If a scenario involves minor, incidental contact with Mobile Goal 1, that likely wouldn't be considered Plowing.(Emphais Added)
If Mobile Goal 1 is just barely placed in a Corner and a Robot possessing Mobile Goal 2 drives into that Corner and pushes Mobile Goal 1 all the way back into the Corner (making it easier to defend), the Robot has intentionally Plowed Mobile Goal 1 while possessing Mobile Goal 2. That would be a violation of <SG6>, and a Disqualification if the Robot's Alliance wins the Match.
The final determination of whether a specific Mobile Goal has been Plowed/manipulated or simply bumped into will require some level of judgment from the Head Referee.
The emphasized section of Q&A 2304 and quoted rules have resulted in several questions about minor and incidental contact and when it becomes manipulation.
In each of the following scenarios we have seen referees rule the contact as a disqualification based on their interpretation of SG6 and the red box statement. We are asking for clarification on if the contact constituted an SG6 Minor Violation, Major Violation, or no violation. We are also looking for a clear definition of manipulation.
In each scenario below red alliance clearly posses a scored goal. Assuming no other rules are violated, how should each scenerio be ruled for the red alliance and doe the goals meet the definition of manipulated?
Scenario 1: Red alliance is traversing the field and contacts a goal while in possession of a goal. The contacted goal only moves slightly.
Scenario 2: Red alliance is traversing the field and contacts a goal while in possession of a goal. The contacted goal moves several inches.
Scenario 3: Red alliance is traversing the field and contacts a goal, getting it stuck in their intake while in possession of a goal. Red alliance backs away removing the second goal without scoring or interacting with any other game elements.
Scenario 4: Red alliance goes to pick up a red ring near a goal with a goal in their possession. Red alliance contacts the second goal causing it to move while intaking the ring.