In the past REC has consistently limited defensive strategies (especially those requiring minimal technical skill) which become too effective. The goal of the REC is to promote STEM. Giving significant advantage to less technically advanced robots runs counter to this purpose. This is why the manual states the game “is intended to be an offensive game.” Offensive robots will need to be continually refined to remain competitive through April. If there is a relatively simple design/strategy that cannot be consistently overcome I would think it in REC’s interest to limit it. I don’t speak for the GDC/REC but this has been consistent in year’s past and I would except (hope) they would encourage its participant to push the bounds of technology instead of looking for strategic ruling loopholes that actually avoid and discourage this.
If they wanted to stop the zone blocking they would have implemented a rule similar to basketball’s rules for loitering in the lanes.
I agree. They would or could. Finding the desired balance between offense/defense is not easy. Last year some defensive restrictions are not fully implemented until Worlds.
@meng Yeah, you’re right about that first point. I hadn’t seen that post before, but that’s definitely an important clarification for any team that plans on employing a defensive strategy. Still though, like you said a robot can position themselves so that they are pushing back against the opposing robot. As long as you have an equal or better drivetrain (and a competent driver), you’d be able to put up a pretty good fight against a robot trying to get to its ten point zone.
I agree with you that you don’t want the interpretation of a ref to decide a match, but I was just trying to quash the claim that “any contact with them will result in a DQ.” From past experiences with reffing myself, it was getting frustrating hearing some (not all, most of the competitors seemed to have read up on the rules pretty well) teams call out for a DQ because of some incidental contact. Not sure if that’s just the culture of the tournaments that I attend, but you know what they say, only siths deal in absolutes.
I also don’t think that a pure defensive robot will guarantee a win at worlds or even at state. However, there is certainly merit to the integration of defensive strategies into both teleop and autonomous, and I would be hesitant to completely rule them out as an option.
Yes, I was referring to taking your mobile goal and stacking on it in the area around an opponent’s. I didn’t say it would be a deal-breaker, but it is certainly a hindrance to the opponent and likely a net positive effect for your alliance. A mild inconvenience is better than no inconvenience, and once again this is not the only defensive strategy that can be employed. I’m sure there are better ones out there that haven’t been discovered or thought about.
Think it is not just the culture of that tournament… many teams try to “seduce” the referee to the dark side by shouting DQ (or pinning)… hoping to influence the decisions.
But back to the OP original question - defense is always a good (and part of a) strategy. But total defense for this season might not be worth it.
I think that @Meng is right, pure defense will not be a super effective strategy in elimination rounds or any high scoring match with two high scoring robots. I do think that for probably until late-mid season it will be extremely effective strategy in qualification matches. An example of this is shown in this match Milwaukee VEX Robotics Competition 11-4-17. My team 202Z is the blue robot closest to the camera.
9807B (The purple robot) does an excellent job of stopping us from scoring while their alliance just scores mobile goals. After the match I talked to 9807B to give them credit for a smart strategy. They said that they knew they could never beat us in a scoring battle, when undefended we can score an average 85 points in 1:45 without autonomous or bonuses. They knew that our alliance was unable to score movable goals while their alliance could score a few of the movable goals in the 10 point zone. If they could stop us from scoring, they would win because their alliance could score movable goals. At the end of the match 9807B mixed in some scoring by putting a movable into the 10 point zone. We won but it only by 2 points, 36-34 so it could have easily been a loss for us.
The moral of the the story is that I you can’t win, an offensive battle, make a new option. Block the highest scoring robot on the field with your lowest scoring robot. It won’t be as reliable as just out-scoring them, but at least then you have a chance to pull off an upset.
So you’re still rocking that robot in one day design, right? 
I am curious if the refs DQed your partner for having too many cones at one time or for expanding beyond 36" horizontally, or, did they determine it was not match affecting?
I found the semifinal I originally was referring to. Go to 3:06:29. This is the second match.
Simple answer to the situation;
Yes, defense is a great strategy but if it is your only strategy you won’t go far. For example, our team was able to do 12 cones stacked on a mobile goal in first 30 or so seconds of the match. If a team were to block the 20, 10, or 5 point zones; the stack would still count for 24 points regardless of it’s position.
So, keep that in mind when you decide to go solely defensive for a robot. It’s a good idea if executed properly.
Why isn’t the interaction in the semifinals where you are pushed against the starting bar very blatantly and effectively ruled illegal and match-affecting?
I think a cool defensive strategy would be to internally stack around somebody else’s mobile goal, thus preventing them from getting it from a bit. Might not destroy them, but could cause an annoying detour.
They said their drive motors were burnt out, so they couldn’t back away.
Never knew this is a valid reason…
We were in the same tournament (lost in the finals to them). Defense was being played pretty hard. What I noticed was that Silicon’s robot scored cones very effectively and even when they were denied the ability to put mobile goals in the scoring zone, they mitigated it by scoring lots of cones out in the field. This won matches for them. Like them, I came away from the tournament with a renewed appreciation for the ability to score cones.
The refs got that one wrong. It does not matter if the motors were burned out. That is not an exception to the rule. Even if it was, they were not burned out when they first touch the robot when it was touching the starting bar. The ref obviously did not know the rule because there is no 5 count for that.
It is absolutely not a valid reason. Horrible call by the referees. Kudos for being so calm about it (at least as far as I know).
But if one team is playing defense to prevent you from scoring your mobile goals it’s no longer an even match. You only have to outscore 1 team with no mobile goals. Or rather with only 2 mobile goals because you scored those in autonomous. I would gladly take a 2v1 where I spot the opponent 20, maybe 25, points.
Sorry… I don’t really understand your analysis…
but It does feels like you are agreeing with my view that it is not much point having a pure defensive robot.
Edit: but as I mentioned earlier - do your own analysis… many of us will come to our own conclusion. Just stick to your belief… it will make worlds more interesting .