If a cube is in the opponents safe zone can your robot contact the cube?
yes, as long as you aren’t violating any of the protected zone rules. that means no going into the inner protected zone, and no contacting your opponent when they are fully contained in the protected zone.
3 Likes
Do you think it would be legal to create a wall bot that trapped a bot in its score zone?
yes, for it to be considered trapping you must be confining your opponent to a space less than or equal to one tile, their protected zone is definitely more than a tile’s worth of space. just make sure they can’t touch you while they’re fully inside their protected zone.
1 Like
Approximately
Per Q&A, could be considered trapping to keep them contained in their protected zone…
4 Likes
I don’t think an area slightly larger than the protected zone (slightly larger because you’ll have to keep your wall outside the lines so they can’t touch you while they’re fully contained in their protected zone) could reasonably be interpreted as approximately one tile. The protected zone itself has the area of 48 square inches, or 2 tiles worth, and once you add the extra area that you’ll need to stay a little ways back behind the lines that area could get even larger. The approximately in that rule allows for some wiggle room, but I don’t think it could cover an area over twice as large as a tile.
2 Likes
I feel like trapping is hard to define this year. In a sense, wall bots would always be trapping as the bots wouldn’t be able to score as part of the field (in this case the score zone) is blocked off. But this also applies vice versa. A wall bot would always trap the other bot, just inside its own goal zone this time.
From the Q&A:
Indirect trapping is one of the more difficult calls for a Head Referee to interpret, and is largely dependent upon in-match context. The video clip that you referenced (if we were to assume that we are now interpreting it using Tower Takeover rules, not In the Zone rules) would be considered Trapping.
In this clip, the red Robot was very clearly intending to hold the blue Robot to a small, confined area, without providing any avenues for escape. The definition of Trapping does include the word “approximately” to imply that the Robot being Trapped may not always neatly line up into a specific foam tile without crossing any seams. Head Referees should not need to (and are not expected to) measure the precise area in which the Robot is being held to confirm if it is exactly 24" wide or not. Similarly, the blue Robot is clearly attempting to escape, which is another key thing that Head Referees will look for when determining if a given interaction is a Trap or not.
In the video referenced, it looks like basically the 3 tiles in the corner (which could be similar to the protected goal zone). I don’t know that it WOULD be called as trapping, but it sure sounds like it COULD be… depends on head ref and exact situation, I guess.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.