At competition, I heard a team was threatened for a disqualification for “pinning” a field object. The scenario was that the robot was blocking the column goal and didn’t expand horizontally or vertically, but it prevented the opposing robot from scoring.
They said the dq would not be given if they would back away from the goal.
My question is, did they really mean “anchoring” to a goal as of rule <SG9>, or is there another ruling I’ve overseen?
In specific, their robot looked very similar to the middle photo(I believe figure 15).
Also, are these assertions correct?
-robots with U-shaped drivetrains cannot block access to the column goal if an opponent can de-score.
-robots with U-shaped drivetrains cannot protect a large ball in an unfilled column goal, if your opponent can stash bucky balls.
Rereading what I’ve written, I may have been too vague…
The robot was U Shaped, and less then 5 inches tall, with the intent to push bucky balls and large balls, but took advantage of this shape to surround the goal on multiple sides (loosely and can be pushed around, but it still surrounds the goal). This robot could also be judged as a defensive robot, so extra scrutiny can be applied.
Would this be considered anchoring under <sg9>?
if this was scaled up,
would a wall-bot be considered anchoring if it only surrounds 1 column goal, rather than 2?
Based on <T01>, referees have the ultimate authority. Would the appropriate series of actions be questioning the referee as of part b, discussing the scenario with a head referee, then determining the necessity of a replay? Or should a team take a different series of actions?