this year we built a duo-bot that has a wall attached to the back that’s able to cover the the whole field except 2 squares
during one of the compositions we had a round were there were NO robots on the side of the field we put are wall out and sat there (we were more on the left so no one could get to are left and center home row ) and one of the opponent’s decides to go and plows into our wall causing them to bend our wall 90 degrees but during this one of their loose wires of the opponent’s snagged on are wall entangling them and because they bent our wall 90 degrees I was not able to bring the wall in
our team received a warning that our wall was the issue not the robot plowing into it
so are we allowed to drive into robots?
that’s kind of a tough one because you lose protection against robot destruction by choosing to build a wallbot. however, it wasn’t your fault the opponent snagged their wires on your walls so you are not in the wrong either.
these kind of rulings can be different depending on how the ref interprets the rules, but as I see it, neither team is at fault so no warning or disqualification should be issued.
5 Likes
True. Per the Game Manual G13 bottom note:
Note: A Robot which has expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field, or is legally covering the top of a Goal in a solely defensive manner, should expect vigorous interactions from opponent Robots. Damage that is caused by opponent Robots pushing, tipping, or Entangling with them would not be considered a violation of G12. Gratuitous damage or dangerous mechanisms may still be considered a violation of R4, S1, or G1 at the Head Referee’s discretion.
Put simply: “wall-bots” and “cap-bots” are legal, but they are to be attempted at your own risk.
Well… in this particular instance, you are behaving as a “wall-bot” and therefore the offensive robot is allowed to drive into you more vigorously and without worrying so much about G12. In normal game play, G12 makes it so that you have to exercise more care when driving into other robots so that you don’t run afoul of the rule. Make sure to read G12 thoroughly!
That doesn’t seem totally unreasonable, although it would have also seemed reasonable for you to not have gotten a warning. The interaction may or may not have risen to this level; we really don’t have enough information to know. As @Xenon27 said, the ruling could differ based on ref interpretation, but I would add that it will also differ based on the exact interaction and how it was seen by the people making the decision. G13 says that if the ref thought there was a judgement call and thought it was questionable the ref should err on the side of the offensive robot.
G13> Offensive Robots get the “benefit of the doubt”. In the case where referees are forced to
make a judgment call regarding a destructive interaction between a defensive and offensive Robot, or an interaction which results in a questionable rules violation, the referees will err on the side of the offensive Robot.
7 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.