Robotics Education & Competition Foundation
Inspirando estudiantes, un robot a la vez.

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

Usage Guidelines All Questions

Extent of concavity/control required for an sg7 violation

Jacob Church (Event Partner)

In determining a SG7 violation.

Using this Q&A (1610)

Part E is labeled as a grey area - where possession is uncertain it is up to the interaction and engagement.

A Robot is considered to be Possessing a Triball if a Robot’s change in direction would result in controlled movement of the Triball. This typically requires at least one of the following to be true:

  1. The Triball is fully supported by the Robot.
  2. The Robot is moving the Triball in a preferred direction with a concave face of the Robot (or inside of a concave angle formed by multiple mechanisms/faces of the Robot).

What extent of turn is required to determine a violation?

A very small concavity can provide an improvement to control, thus is any beneficial control a violation?

A default clawbot is shown with minor concavity formed by the inset of the motors and the wheels extending slightly - forming <=0.5 in depth of concavity - see image below. A gif is coupled showing this concavity being used to manipulate two triballs with greater ease than a flat plate.

img img

Answered by committee

Our answer to this question is essentially the same as this similar Q&A post.

Generally speaking, it will be impossible to provide a black and white "legality spectrum" of every possible Robot profile, mechanism, and in-Match interaction. Even if we could, attempting to do so would be counter-productive... it is generally preferable for a Head Referee to have the latitude they need to make real-world judgment calls based on actual Matches, instead of asking them to memorize an infinite list of hypothetical scenarios.