Answered: a few questions about the gateway entanglement rule

After wandering around on this forum, i have a few questions.

Is it legal for a bot to entangle aother robot during autonomous?

According to the manual the definition of entanglement is “A robot is considered to have Entangled an opposing robot if it has grabbed or hooked the opponent robot.”

And agian, According to the manual, pinning is out for consideration during autonomous,but what about entanglement? And if entanglement does count, which side will be DQed if both of them seems innocent which means they just run into each other and got stocked?

Here is a real happening for the situation stated:

i wonder if the red interaction bot should be considered violating the entanglement rule because it was some kind of grabing the oppenent robot during autonomous and it acctually went on hooking with each other the whole game. What was the result of that match?


According to <SG14>Robots may not enter or exit an Isolation Zone while the Gate associated with that Isolation Zone is down.

i think ive seen a latter version of the pharsing which mentioned “e.g touching the tile” and “breaking the plane”… I just want to know the very definition of “enter”? is scoring through the gate considered illegal? e.g a very long arm that can reache a goal in a isolation zone to score. Is touching a goal the same as touching the iso tile?

<SG14>Robots may not enter or exit an Isolation Zone while the Gate associated with that Isolation Zone is down.


<SG10> Robots are not permitted to break the plane of their opponents Alliance Starting Tile during the Autonomous Period. Violations of this rule will result in the offending Alliance losing their Doubler Barrel and Negation Barrel.

sorry for being so hypothetical cuz this question was a result of “just for fun thinking”

What if a robot forces the opponent team during automous to thier tile / during driver control into the isolation zone(while the gate is down)? there are no entanglements, just pushing…

Sorry for asking so many questions that may finally seem awkward…but i just want to make clear of the situation since there might be team that will be on the edge of these rules…

AND the most important, though i shoud have post the following word in another section of this forum, i have to clarify that im not using my own account. I post with Anarkia because i cant speak with my own account!!! THANKS to Anarkia from Nanjing,he lend me this… any marked point of mine in this thread should only be my opinion.

thanks for reading through

One more thing…

The definition:Pinning – A Robot is considered to be Pinning an opposing Robot if it is inhibiting the movement of an opponent Robot while the opposing Robot is in contact with the foam playing surface and another Field Element.

I just want to know the definition of movement? Is only the travling on field tiles count as moving or all changes that happens to a robot (e.g lifting arms,folding out intakes) ? It matters because once a robot is trapped by another, say, in a corner, which let the robot unable to move on the field but capable of raising part of it up that leaves itself a chance to drive around, does the trapping robot count as pinning?

Intentional entanglement is always illegal, even during the Autonomous Period.

Based on what I can tell from the video you linked, neither team intentionally entangled the other. This is what I would consider incidental entanglement. Of course, there’s only so much you can tell from a video.

Here is the complete rule:

Breaking the plane of the zone is legal, intentionally touching down in the zone is not.

No penalty would be assessed if an opposing robot forces another one into one of these situations.

For the purposes of the Pinning rule, movement is considered to be traversing the field.

thanks! Today i came up with another question¡*i believe in a previous thread u said that a thing is considered a risk of entanglement. i wonder whats that like in specific. eg a rope that hooks to a goal?or a folding wall or screens is considered risky too?

A rope that hooks to a goal would definitely be an entanglement risk. A folding wall’s risk of entanglement would depend on its specific construction.

thanks Karthik

You’re welcome.

Em… another fellow asked me about the “folding screens and wall” thing and i hope its better to rephrase the sentence since it has caused confusion… By saying folding screens and wall i meant folding screens and wall that , instead of a rope, hooking to a goal.(im really sorry by saying something so ambiguous earlier…)
There were confusion around this idea because it could be the “hooking” part that violates the rule… Making this futher explicit, as long as the folding part doesnt involves in entangling others is OK to get pass the robot inspection right?

From what you’ve described, it sounds as if the mechanism would pass inspection. However, the final determination would be made by the inspectors at your event.