Game Play - All Match Periods - Answers

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Minerals - Minerals In a Crater

In our current design we have a mechanism that is as follows:

We suck in two minerals located in the crater into a vertical chamber and if needed we will intake a third item that pushes out the first item. This can be used to prevent holding more then two for a extended time as well as helps us quickly sort the minerals.

Question: Is sucking in a third mineral on purpose and using said mineral to eject another mineral legal?

Answer: The Robot's actions described in the scenario do not violate the Mineral Control/Possession rule <GS3>, provided that the Minerals remain In the Crater during this action.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Minerals - Minerals in a Depot

Question: Can a Robot incur a major penalty for driving into its own depot, carrying two minerals, but accidentally pushing a mineral that was already in the depot, thus controlling 3 scoring items.

Answer: The Robot in this scenario does not violate rule <GS3>. This ruling does not apply to a Robot in the opposing Alliance's Depot.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS9> Launching Game Elements - Team Marker falling off a Robot

Question: Our team maker fell off of our robot during the driver-control period. Is this a violation of rule <GS9> for "launching" a game element?

Answer: A <GS9> Penalty should not be assessed for a Team Marker that falls off of a Robot.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS5> Blocking Access to Scoring in the Lander - Opposing Alliance Robot is not attempting to Score in the Lander

Question 1: If the opposing alliance is not in their landing zone, but scoring in the depot, Is it legal to drive under the lander to get to the opposing alliances crater?

Question 2: Would this be considered blocking access to the Lander even when no robot is trying to get access?

Answer 1: Yes, an opposing Alliance Robot must demonstrate intent to Score in a Lander or Latch for rule <GS5> to come into play.

Answer 2: No

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS3> Control/Possession Limits of Minerals - Accidental Possession of a Mineral

Question 1: If a robot on the opposing alliance is trying to score a mineral, and it falls into our robot by mistake, is my robot "in possession" of the element?

Question 2: Will it count against us if we are also moving elements?

Answer 1: Yes

Answer 2: Yes, the Mineral that is accidentally Possessed by the Robot counts towards the two Mineral Control/Possession constraint described in rule <GS3>.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <T5> Wireless Communication at Tournaments

Question: Rule <T5> states that "No other wireless communication is allowed". It is our understanding that this implies communication between the drivers and the robot... however, would it be legal to allow one robot to communicate with it's partner with, for example, optical communication (LED's or lights + optical sensor)?

Answer: No, however, the GDC will consider the requested rule change for a future season.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: Alliance Partner communication after the Match has started.

Question: After the match has begun, can teams move around their respective alliance station in order to talk to their alliance partner? Can they go behind the referee scoring station in order to communicate better?

Answer: The Drive Team Coaches may move around Inside their Alliance Station in order to talk with their Alliance Partner, provided that it does not interfere with the Scoring Referee, and Field Personnel are not occupying the area behind the Scoring Referee. The Head Referee, FTA, FTAA, etc. may occupy this area while observing Match play or when assisting Drive Teams.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <G16> Robots Grasping Game Elements - Crater Rim

We were wondering what the definition of "grabbing" game elements is in regards to the crater rim. More specifically, what constitutes grabbing the crater rim?

In <G16> of Game Manuel 2, it says,

"Robots may not grab, grasp, and/or attach to any Game Element, Robot, or structure other than Scoring Elements, unless specifically allowed by game-specific rule(s) listed in Section 1.6.3."

However, grabbing is not defined in 1.4 Game Definitions

Our design uses the crater rim as a temporary anchor to hold a collector on the end of an arm while our robot drives backwards to extend and lock the arm in place. This design would apply minimal pressure to the inside of the crater rim for a short duration (less than 5 sec), less than the pressure a drive train would apply when exiting the crater.

We would not have anything that specifically grabs the crater, we would only use the back surface of our collector.

Question: Would our design be considered illegal? And if so, why?

Thank you!

Answer: A Robot applying pressure against only one side of the Crater Rim does not violate rule <G16>.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: <GS9> Launching Game Elements - Game Elements Inside a Robot

<GS9> states that we can only launch game elements in the Landing zone if we are launching in an attempt to score. The game manual part 2 also states that launching is defined as "propelling game elements into the air".

Question: Is it legal then to use a spinning flywheel as a transport system that moves the mineral between point A and point B within the robot only in the horizontal direction? It does not directly score the elements, but rather is just used for speedy transport.

Answer: Rule <GS9> does not apply to Game Elements while they are inside the Robot body.

[Air Jordan]

Subject: Keeping track of Drive Team/Robot strategies across multiple Matches and Playing Fields

If we can use the example scenario of question 21 in the autonomous answer section.

Suppose the team in question slams their arm down in the crater in every match, (this was a design choice.) Given the high density of minerals in the crater, the ejection probability is high. It is viewed as a strategy and thus should be penalized (major) under GS2 when the opponents sampling field is disturbed.

In the real world, robots play different opponents, on opposite sides of the field, opposite fields, with different drivers and refs are highly unlikely to see the same team or remember these types of inadvertent "strategies" that are consequential from match to match.

Question 1: What is the proper mechanism to deal with this type of repeated "inadvertent strategy"?

Question 2: Is it the responsibility of individual teams to keep track of this?

Answer 1: Rule <T3> in the Game Manual Part 1 describes how Teams may discuss Match play with the Head Referee.

Answer 2: The tracking of repeated violations is traditionally done by the Head Referee. In a single Playing Field event, this activity is trivial. In a two Playing Field event, the tracking depends on the number of Head Referees. Usually, there is one Head Referee that moves between the two Playing Fields. In this case, the tracking is again trivial. If there are multiple Head Referees, then there needs to be good communication between the Head Referees about tracked issues.