Answered: Is it QD (quality defense) or DQ (disqualification)

[Team550]

There is far to much ambiguity in the defensive rulings. This leads to non standard interpretations. Many rules state that when considering a ruling about defense, referees should err on the side of the offensive robot (G12). To have the determination of a DQ be based upon “match affecting” is way too vague. Defensive bots have an advantage in this scenario as it is hard to determine how many points “might” be scored in the future. Let us suppose for instance, police offers could only write drivers a warning for speeding, and citations could only be written when it involved an accident. I surmise most of us would likely ignore speed limits. Let us suppose an alliance wins auton convincingly with a Mobile goal and cone in the 20 PT zone and likewise in the 10 PT zone (this has happened with our teams frequently). They could then both drive to the opponents 5 point zone and park. Those two bots would occupy at least 36 inches of the 60 inches available leaving little room for the opposing alliance to score anything other than cones and stationary stacks. That is contrary to ethos statement of G12.
Now, let’s address pinning vs trapping. If “pinning”is defined as inhibiting the movement of a robot while they are contacting the foam playing surface or another field element, then would a defensive strategy of moving along an opponents 5 point zone and not allowing them to move into score in the 10or 20 point zones be considered pinning? Conversely, an offensive robot “trying” to score is in essence trapping the defensive robot by confining them to a small space. Ambiguity again.
Lastly, with respect to QD or DQ. In the auton period G12 States, A Team is responsible for the actions of its Robot at all times, including the Autonomous Period. This goes for Teams that are driving recklessly and potentially causing damage. Potentially causing damage? I have seen a well designed auton that can score 27 points crashed by kamikaze bots intent only in fouling the auton. This crash usually results in the two bots motors running as programmed till a PTC trips and now one (usually the well designed one with turbo drive and skilled programming) is battling overheating the rest of the match. So, is that “potentially causing damage”?

Below are examples of what I am discussing. As we are approaching the end of the regular season and State and World events, we (I am a team mentor, event partner, volunteer ref, and judge) need solid understanding of how to rule in these scenarios so that In The Zone stays offensively oriented and challenges students to build high performing robots that perform tasks other than block and crash.

Vex in the zone sabotage autonomous

Vex in the zone loader pushing

Aggressive defense vex in the zone

[attachment:5a72be5106c8d]

[VEX_GDC]

In the future, asking specific rules questions and separating different questions into their own posts will help us to better understand and answer your questions.

First:

They could then both drive to the opponents 5 point zone and park. Those two bots would occupy at least 36 inches of the 60 inches available leaving little room for the opposing alliance to score anything other than cones and stationary stacks. That is contrary to ethos statement of G12.

This would be considered a violation of <SG7>, quoted below for reference and bolded for emphasis:

<SG7> Two Robots on the same Alliance may not work in tandem to block access to portions of the field. Examples include, but are not limited to, two Robots blocking access to:

• Scoring Zones
• Corners of the field (especially in an effort remove access to Cones or Mobile Goals)
• The Loader

Note: Robots incidentally blocking access to portions of the field while attempting to Stack Cones on Goals, Score Mobile Goals in Goal Zones or while Parking is an expected part of game play. Minor violations of this rule that do not affect the match will result in a warning. Match Affecting offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the Head Referee’s discretion.

Next:

If “pinning”is defined as inhibiting the movement of a robot while they are contacting the foam playing surface or another field element, then would a defensive strategy of moving along an opponents 5 point zone and not allowing them to move into score in the 10or 20 point zones be considered pinning?

No. The definitions of Pinning and Trapping are as follows, with some portions bolded for emphasis:

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.

Trapping – A Robot is considered to be trapped if an opposing Robot has restricted it into a small, confined area of the field, approximately the size of one foam field tile or less, and has not provided an avenue for escape.

To cause an <SG4> violation using Pinning, the Pinned Robot must be contacting both the playing surface and a Field Element. To cause an <SG4> violation using Trapping, the Robot must be confined to an area of one tile or less.

Next:

I have seen a well designed auton that can score 27 points crashed by kamikaze bots intent only in fouling the auton. This crash usually results in the two bots motors running as programmed till a PTC trips and now one (usually the well designed one with turbo drive and skilled programming) is battling overheating the rest of the match. So, is that “potentially causing damage”?

No. The PTC is a safety feature of the 393 motor designed to prevent damage in the event of a stall condition. It is not uncommon for teams to implement programming techniques that prevent this type of prolonged stall when a robot encounters a pushing match. We do not typically give design suggestions in the Q&A forum, but feel free to ask for more information about this from the community in one of the unofficial or tech support forums.