Answered: SG6a: Crossing the fence necessarilly "corners" the opposing robots

In the SG6a: The Root of Our Confusion, Crossing the Fence Necessitates Trapping Q&A, our spoken definition of trapping was revised from being

to now being

Unfortunately we still have same problem with this revised definition as we did before.

If a robot crosses the fence - thereby taking up space on the other side of the fence - and their opponent tries to enter the space taken up by the first robot, then they are “‘cornered’ and stuck in a section of the field” - the section that is not taken up by the robot who has crossed the fence.

How should referees determine when a robot is “‘cornered’ and stuck in a section of the field” given that crossing the fence necessarily confines your opponents to the section of the field not taken up by the robot that has crossed the fence?

Referees will be expected to make a common sense interpretation here. Robots that extend a dumper over in the process of scoring are not trapping or cornering their opponents. Robots that extend wall like structures over the fence are in definite danger of being ruled as violating <SG6a>, especially if this wall traps their opponent into a corner. I understand you want an explicitly defined distance here, but there’s too many factors involved to provide one. However, it’s suffice to say that if you’ve restricted a Robot to a third of the area on their side of the fence, this is almost certainly a violation. That’s not saying that a violation couldn’t be called for a bigger region, just a guideline to help the referees.