Possible Loophole?

These are the rules:

“1 GAME PIECE at a time (except in LOADING ZONE and COMMUNITY). ROBOTS (I believe referring to robots in general for grammar) completely outside their LOADING ZONE or COMMUNITY may not have greater-than-MOMENTARY CONTROL of more than 1 GAME PIECE, either directly or transitively through other objects.
A ROBOT is in CONTROL of a GAME PIECE if:
A. the GAME PIECE is fully supported by the ROBOT, or
B. the ROBOT is intentionally moving a GAME PIECE to a desired location or in a preferred direction”

My question is, could you say that 2 robots, neither having full support (or control) over game pieces, carry more than one together? I know it is a grammatical loophole, but… could you have two robots with half a bucket at their bumpers, connect themselves, then fill the bucket with pieces, move to their community, then release the payload. I am new to FRC and I don’t know how you guys count grammatical loopholes.

On this one I would probably argue the intentional motion part as being the part that makes this an issue.

It could be an interesting question for Q&A…

1 Like

If two robots are carrying a game piece together, then I think they would both be in full control of it by point B. I see you’ve bolded the articles “a” and “the”; by my reading these are equivelant to “For each robot, that robot is in control of the game piece if…that robot is intentionally moving the game piece.”

On the other hand, if a game piece is held by two robots that are not trying to do anything with it (perhaps it fell on the bumpers as one robot is pinning the other), then it would not be considered controlled

2 Likes

I see your point; however, this would still be “intentionally moving a GAME PIECE to a desired location or in a preferred direction.”

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.