Defense at protected zone volume

I’m not entirely sure. When going through these rules, they definitely didn’t line up with what I expected from these protected zones. That’s why I’m hoping for some clarity from the Q&A.

6 Likes

I have realized that breaking rules are exceptionally easy in Tower Takeover, and is more frequent than In The Zone to a point where the referees have to be lenient or almost every team in the event will get disqualified. I have continuously seen teams dropping cubes out of the field while scoring a stack, and it gets drastically worse during the autonomous period when everything is relied on code and theres no sensory input on the robot that can visually tell when the stack is tipping. I would absolutely love a re-evaluation of the rules, but at the same time I wonder “re-evaluate to what exactly?”

4 Likes

Continuing the discussion from Defense at protected zone volume:

if you are playing defense, you are touching the opponent robot. That robot is likely touching the goal zone(through possessed cube) or touching the barrier. You are now indirectly contacting the goal zone/barrier which is in violation

How does one indirectly contact the volume? Is the premise that the blue robot touches a red robot where the red robot is partially in the red Inner Protected Zone, that the blue robot is now in indirect contact with the red Inner Protected Zone? If so that seems like a stretch…

1 Like

The gameplay case against <SG3E> being transitive through robots, though, is it would mean a robot could plant part of itself in the inner protected zone, deploy a tethered sub-bot or bots, and receive an automatic win if an opponent touched any part of the tether(s), sub-bot(s), or any walls deployed by the sub-bot(s). The strategy wouldn’t extend to intentionally making contact with other robots while touching your IPZ because of <G14>, but passively waiting for another robot to touch you isn’t covered by <G14>. The automatic nature of <SG3E> would preclude protection for the offensive robot under <G13>, too, if such a transitive ruling were made. It would, at the very least, make it a DQ’able offense to play defense against a robot with a tethered anchor in its IPZ.

6 Likes

Yes! I came to this exact same conclusion this weekend. The current combination of automatic disqualification, transitive contact being disallowed, and the IPZ being defined as a volume, leads to some very drastic (possibly unintended) consequences. The answers to Q&A 398 and 432 will be illuminating.

9 Likes

Seems non intended and I guess it’s up to the head ref if they want to follow this cuz of T1 a head refs decision is final. It doesn’t have to follow the exact wording of the rule, just the spirit. It’s like the supreme Court interperating the Constitution, the head ref interprets what the spirit of the rule is, and I don’t think what has been said is the spirit of the rule (bit messy but hope it makes sense) at least this is the way untill the q&a is awnsered

2 Likes

Referees are actually told to follow the exact wording of the rule, as opposed to trying to gauge the spirit on their own.

From the Referee Training Guide

  1. Remember that a referee’s job is to enforce the rules as written, not as a referee thinks they should be written. Global consistency is key in ensuring the integrity of competition.
    a. Do not invent, modify, or ignore rules.
    b. Do not penalize teams who are not playing in a way that a referee “feels” is right.

So as a referee, as much as they may feel a rule doesn’t make sense, or was intended to mean something different than is written, it’s still their job to follow the rule as written. This can be tough, and was something I struggled with this past weekend.

9 Likes

Huh, good to know, thanks

5 Likes

If referees are only following the spirit of the rule, then different referees would have different take on what each rule is trying to prevent and then you would have inconsistencies between different events.

That being said, for the past few seasons where the chance of sharp objects hitting eyes are slim, all referees seem to interpret T3 as “please be safe and use common sense” and never enforced that rule. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

But for your own safety, please wear safety goggles this year.

1 Like

Because this is such a big exploit, I’m assuming this will be patched in the next (and probably unscheduled) rules update. When can we expect that, should it be patched?

I personally have played defense on the protected zone. What I learned is that you can be in the protected zone and stop a robot from going into it as long as:

  1. You are not touching the inner zone
  2. You are not touching an opposing robot who it fully in the protected zone

Make of this whatever you want, but this is what the referee at the tournament told me when the opposing team asked for an explanation

1 Like

I feel like if they want to make it illegal for teams to contact any opponent robot that is touching the inner protection zone, they should state it more clearly, similar to Case A, maybe something along the line of “Contact an opponent Robot which is contacting their Inner Protected Zone.”, instead of trying to let us go through it like a logic course exam

5 Likes

QA 398 has been answered, confirming that simply breaking the plane of the inner protected zone is an automatic disqualification. QA 432 about indirect contact with the Inner Protected Zone has not been answered yet, but I assume it will be answered shortly.

4 Likes

Going back to what John said, I feel like that goes against common sense, which is a rule and is completely up to the judges to determine, but I’d say having a robot with a part in the inner protected zone and then a bunch of tethers going around the field causing the opponents to get dq’d isn’t common sense

1 Like

That would fall under G14

You can’t force an opponent into a penalty. Intentional strategies that cause an opponent to
violate a rule are not permitted, and will not result in an infraction on the opposing Alliance.
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.

However you can argue your intention is not to contact them, but just have multiple robot that can score and accidentally touched them…

You still kinda have to explain why you sat in the protected zone instead of literally anywhere else

It’s like pushing someone into your stack to get them dqed. You could say that they were in the way of you trying to score. But then you’d have to explain why you couldnt just push them out of the way…

2 Likes

Back in nothing but net there was a heated debate regarding blocking opponents from getting back to protected zone for lifting, basically Karthik’s ruling is that there are so many places you can be on the field, but you choose to be in their way, so it will be on you if you got pushed into the protection zone. So “why couldn’t you just push them out of the way” doesn’t sound like a valid excuse

1 Like

Of course it will be very obvious if you just have a tether bot and wanna try to DQ every team you play against, and past rulings dont apply to this year. Keep that in mind. There is a related QA on playing defense in the protection zone https://www.robotevents.com/VEXU/2019-2020/QA/431
and the ruling I was talking about is here
Answered: Forced into Climbing Zone

Ah yes but remember: precedents and rulings from other seasons dont carry over :wink: