SG6a Community Opinions

SG6a and trapping:
Can objects on the other side of the fence be defended:

It seems that the line of what is trapping is being left up to local referees. I won’t make another official Q&A, as this is probably all we are going to get out of Karthik on the issue. However, it is a concern that different events with different referees will have different definitions off trapping, and a legal robot at one event may be illegal at another.

The safest thing is to not attempt any design of this sort, but it is unknown whether there is a legal way to lockdown the objects in a scored position, and teams may find themselves playing against designs they thought were illegal. Of course teams may also make designs they thought were legal that turn out to be illegal.

Therefore I’m asking for community opinions. If you were a referee, or if you are a referee, how will you enforce this rule? Could a robot executing a object denial strategy be legal, and if so how?

I would ask that you read at least the two threads linked above and preferably the previous Q&As before answering.

The fact that I don’t know how I’d rule worries me… I’d probably lean toward not calling a foul for extending something over the fence at the moment

Right now I would probably lean the opposite way and make any kind of specialized blocking robots that reach across the fence (wall or cage) illegal. This is based off timescale (temporary vs permanent), size (blocks enough to be useful), and whether it is a “normal” robot or not. Of course none of these things are actually part of the rules, but it from what I can tell I think that this is the intent.

I think I would rule as follows:

  1. A robot that extends into their opponents side of the field, either through or over the fence, is not in and of itself in violation.
  2. A robot that extends into their opponents side of the field and in doing so restricts the movement of an opposing robot to a particular part of its side of the might be in violation, if
    a) the opposing robot actually attempts to move out of the space to which it is restricted and
    b) the restricted space is a relatively small potion of the opposing side of the field (1/2 or less). Therefore
    a robot that extended a fence around stars in their low scoring zone would not be necessarily in
    violation assuming that the fence did not restrict the opposing robots from moving around most of
    their side of the field.
    c) it would be a violation if the extended robot extended completely across their scoring zone, thereby
    dividing the field into two separate regions.

I hope this makes sense. This is what I have gotten to based on the Q&As so far.

This makes a lot of sense :slight_smile:

So is this the actual definition of trapping? Can we get this moved to the Q&A to show refs all of the parts of it in one place?

The conflict between SG6 and SG6a still confuses me.

You would think if you stick your hand in the cage and the bear bites it, shame on you! The side of the field you start on should be your domain. Defend the guy reaching through the fence within reason to not break anything. But that is not the case…

You can’t touch the near zone tile where points score for you (reach to the white tape on the other side of the fence from you), and you can’t force someone to touch their zone intentionally and DQ them. Got that part.

The part I have a hard part with is you also can’t hold them against the fence as they poke through either from what SG6.a says. And the time you do contact the opposing robot is not defined. (That fence is not metal so maybe it breaks too easily and this rule had to be enacted?) If you are not so smart and reach through the other robot should be able to smack you under normal 3 second pinning rules.


Starstruck no longer has definitions for pinning and trapping like previous years games. Do they need to be added in like SG4 from Nothing But Net? The rules do not give a three count this year, so an instant pin or trap is now a DQ to the defender? That could lead to a lot of ambiguity across events.

No, this was just a comment on me agreeing with the interpretation 536mentor’s post. I was hoping to help provide some clarity, alas I’ll go back to staying out of these threads.

Please don’t. I was just hoping to get more clarity on what I still see as an unclear rule. Sorry.

However it would be nice if there were one Q&A post with all of the currant rulings on <SG6a> in one place, so refs can read it and know about it without having to fish through so many threads to get a full understanding of it. Not everyone gets to read the Q&As as they come out, so it can be a little difficult to tell which rulings apply to each update.

I thought there was a page last year on the old version of this page…

I’ll go by 536Mentor’s reasoning since Karthik approved it.

A robot can restrict access as long as it is blocks off less than half of the field, and does not extend across one or both scoring zones, cutting the field into two separate regions.

Karthik, please correct me if this is not the view a referee should be taking.


This is an interpretation that is consistent with the rules and the Q&A. It describes a legal strategy, but does not necessarily describe every legal strategy.

You may want to ask this in the official Q&A, so you can get an official response. As always anything I post outside the official Q&A is simply guidance, as opposed to an official ruling.

Thanks again for asking detailed questions in an effort to help everyone better understand this rule.