If a wallbot that is not inside the outer protected zone and is blocking off the entire protected zone , and there is a robot in the protected zone, would that be considered as trapping?
here is what I mean
the wall bot is on the blue alliance and the robot is on the red alliance
this is perfectly legal. you are only considered trapping if you are constraining your opponent to an area roughly the size of one tile. the protected zone is much larger than a tile, so not trapping.
2 Likes
thank you this makes a lot of things easier
Mine already does it 
1 Like
see you at worlds then hopefully
2 Likes
I would like to see a Q&A clarification on this, honestly. If you look at the below Q&A, the GDC indicates that the trapping does NOT need to be a single foam tile. The same Q&A references a wallbot but unfortunately the GDC does not clearly answer the question in relation to the wallbot. However, the way the question is worded and the response is worded it appears (IMO) that they ARE saying a wallbot blocking them into the corner is trapping.
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2019-2020/QA/328
My reading of the Q&A - if the robot in the corner has gone there offensively (such as to score) and then actively attempts to leave the corner but cannot due to a wallbot deploying, that wallbot potentially has trapped them and must obey trapping rules. (Always a “Head Referee must determine context”, of course.)
Does anyone have any additional insight into this from an official source? Or are other people just reading that Q&A differently?
1 Like
A Robot is considered Trapped if an opposing Robot has restricted it into a small, confined area of the field, approximately the size of one foam tile of less and has not provided an avenue for escape. Trapping can be direct (pinning) or indirect (preventing a Robot from escaping the corner of the field).
the area inside the wall in the above picture is 4.5 tiles, 4 if you don’t count the goal zone since you can’t really use that space.
I think it would be preposterous to say that 4 tiles is approximately one tile.
1 Like
I am not a lawyer but I can think of one other situation that may lead to a DQ in this situation. Q&A 449 ruled that when a defensive robot gets in the way of an offensive robot attempting to score in their protected zone, and this causes the defensive robot to be pushed into their opponent’s inner protected zone, they will be in violation of SG3 due to G13 (i.e. G13 overrules G14’s protection against being forced into a violation). I could see a similar ruling happening here if you were to be contacted by your opponent who is inside, while they are still contacting their inner protected zone. This would mean that you are indirectly contacting their inner protected zone, and as you are the defensive robot and they are the offensive robot (they are there to score cubes), then you could lose your G14 protection via G13, thus resulting in a DQ.
2 Likes
In the ITZ clip the GDC is referencing, isn’t it basically 3 tiles? So 4 isn’t that much of a stretch… that’s why it would be nice to get an official Q&A clarification (and one not so… vague).
In the clip showing the wallbot, at least one of the barriers was very similar to the one in question here and the GDC didn’t point out differences between any particular type of corner trapping (and there were several types).
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.