[EricH]

Originally Posted by Siri

Note that neither <G29> or <G30> (nor any others else I can find, having read the manual) make any mention on penalties--though <S01> may touch on specific cases. Thus, according to the "further damage is likely to occur" clause of <G30>, I will guess that the standard of proof for disabling may will be preventability (within the match), rather than intentionality. If penalties were to be assigned (presumably on the basis of <S01>), the standard would probably be intentionality or negligence of design or operation, the latter hopefully being a consistent practice rather than a brief mistake, though of course that makes the judgment even more subjective.

Disabling is a penalty that is worse than a penalty. It takes away an entire robot's scoring potential, and this year, your trailer is now a sitting duck for the other alliance.

<S01> doesn't apply here, unless your robot is being unsafe. <S04> might. (I'd have to find a robot rule that would be violated.)

As for intent, there is a large difference between just (trying to) drive around and accidentally slamming a game piece into another robot/the wall and taking in a game piece the intended way and having it come out in half-a-dozen strips, multiple times. The standard is intentionality, not preventability, or at least, that's how I read the rules.