Praise be to Karthik and the rest of the GDC! I have taken (unnoteworthy) opposition to the the previous clarifications on SG6, but I think we can all agree the update and the retroactively-changed Q&A answers provide much more clarity on over-the-fence contact. I’m very glad that the GDC made this change, as it seems to buck the trend that was developing of low-interaction games, at least a bit. What are your thoughts?
I really appreciate the shorter and simpler definition of the rule, because I feel it will streamline communication between teams and refs at competitions. Especially early into the season when not every ref understands the rules 100%, being able to show them something that says “just don’t pin/trap/grab” is a lot simpler than trying to show how a complex, case-by-case ruling means your strategy is legal.
Overall, pretty happy with the update
The June update states that:
But, the new August Update states:
This brings me to question whether @meng’s wallbot would still be legal, because it would not be explicitly pinning, trapping and grabbing any opposing robots.
It’s restricting the movement by contact. If they try to get past it, it is contact.
Looking at the new ruling, it looks like the 8059a wallbot has been “legalised”.
Especially if we are to look closely at these two revised rulings - it seems like we can stick something across the fence, as long as we are not pining, trapping or grabbing any opponent robots.
I can feel the salt.
Having a design you liked only for it to be ruled illegal, so you have to destroy it and build a new robot only to be told that your 1st robot was legal.
Based on my understanding of your proposed Wallbot, I have a hard time envisioning a situation where your Robot does not trap your opponent.
The new rule introduces three terms (pinning, trapping, and grabbing) that are not defined anywhere in the manual. This thread and also a very brief conversation with a friend of mine last night have already shown that there are very different conceptions of the intended meaning of these words.
Seems like we till need more Q&As.
Seems you need to post this to Q&A with specific question
However, with regard to all three, I assume it relates to this clarification:
Q&A on SG6a which broadly discusses restricting the opposing robot.
Q&A on Pinning where it discusses inhibiting movement…
In all the forum posts dating back quite a while, there does not seem to be ambiguity what is pinning, trapping, or grabbing.
Some point, common sense kicks in that you don’t really need to define all possibilities in the rules.
But, if you need to have it spelled out, post it on Q&A.
Well right here in this thread there was confusion on whether meng’s wallbot was legal or not, so evidently there is some ambiguity and “common sense” isn’t enough.
Also, saying that we already should know what trapping is from previous years doesn’t work, because Karthik seems to have a new definition in mind given his above post.
Naah… nothing salty about it.
When the students were building the robot, we were already prepared that the ruling will be against us. And that’s the reason why the team had a Plan B - which they know they can execute it within 1 day.
The team still went ahead with the wallbot simply because they wanted the technical challenge (they know they will never be able to win a spot for worlds with a wallbot)
PS… we didnt destroy the 80% done wallbot… it is still in the lab
The main concept behind the proposed wallbot was never meant to trap the opponents.
The idea is to create a small zone that we can dump the stars and cubes into and the opponents cannot get them. So in that sense, it is not much different from @Highwayman idea of having a cage over the stars and cubes to prevent the opponents from getting their hands on it (which looking at the revised ruling, it is now legal).
But I am have to say that the original plan was also to restrict (or least hinder) the opponents from reaching the hanging bar - which I am not sure if it is now legal or not.
2013 Q&A on Trapping
2012 Q&A on Trapping
My point is the request was for definition as to what Karthik means by “trapping”, one can look up past clarification and apply it to this context. If you want precise clarification, the place to go is Q&A, no?
There has been a fair amount of discussion regarding impeding the motion of robots on their side of the fence, it seems fairly consistent that you can not restrict other robots motion on their side of the field over the fence.
Under the fence is another matter.
Technically these Q&As don’t apply this year. It’s important to cross your t’s and dot your i’s. And as @Highwayman said, what Karthik implied above seems to indicate that the rules of trapping are different than previously indicated. Meng didn’t suggest that he would restrict opponents to a single tile or less…
True the single tile applied to earlier games. I was only pointing out that the terms trapping, pinning, and grabbing are fairly common in VEX.
What is still lost about what I said originally, the question should be asked in Q&A if you want an official clarification. Any thing we say here is mere speculation.
I am confused by this ruling as well. At first glance it would seem as if this type of wallbot is legal again, except for a this Q&A (and Karthik’s response earlier in the thread).
I can only surmise that the definition of trapping has been changed without telling anyone, or that wallbots are illegal despite violating no rules, and the manual update just confuses things further by explicitly laying out all the rules that they do not violate (pinning, trapping, grabbing). I’m also hazy on what the difference between a “cage” and a “wall” is if the intent is to protect objects. What makes a cage legal while a wall is not?
I just put up a Q&A
I would have asked for definitions of pinning, trapping, and grabbing, even if it is a repetition from previous years. It would make it clear for the record.
Thanks for posting to Q&A!
@Owen thank you so much!
Thank you @Owen