Unofficial Defensive strategy


#1

We were wondering, should the blue alliance been DQ’d

#2

I don’t think it would be dq’d considering that this isn’t starstruck.


#3

my bad


#4

That doesn’t look like starstruck lol

The goal hoarding is legal, so that shouldn’t be a DQ. If you’re referring to the autonomous, that should also be fine. If anything, the auto would be given to red, but as a general rule DQs don’t happen in auto.

EDIT: I didn’t see the stack tip, I do believe that should be a DQ, although it could have been ruled as red’s fault because the blue bot did not actively tip it. Still I think a DQ would have been justified.


#5

If it’s in our state (Wisconsin) probably a dq. I remember in one of the matches our alliance partner tipped over in autonomous and landed near the opponent’s mogo making it inconvenient for the other team to pick it up, we got dqed. It all depends on how the refs see it and I would respect their decision no matter the outcome.


#6

And looking at it, it kinda looks iffy. There were times where there was pinning but it would only be considered as a warning (at least for WI) but I think the tipping of the cones on the mg’s wouldn’t technically be a dq considering that red would’ve lost anyways weather they tipped the cones or not.


#7

Again this is all on the ref’s call so I personally can’t dictate whether it would be a dq or not.


#8

We tried to argue that in the way the blue robot defends the mobile goals they are also hoarding cones in violation of SG9


#9

Teams are not allowed to employ Cone hoarding strategies. Cone “hoarding” refers to the act of
intentionally plowing multiple Cones to a specific location of the field, even with a flat/convex
portion of a Robot, such that they are kept away from the opposing Alliance.

I guess it would come down to the ref ruling if the blue alliance intentionally pushed the cones to the corner or not


#10

Ah but Noah you know that 1045B does intentionally push the cones while pushing the mobile goals, he then also blocks it with his robot.


#11

While true, the blue robots clearly did not intend on benefiting from “hoarding” the cones in the corner. It would be different if they were letting the other blue robot score those cones, but instead they were just simply not put into play.


#12

Definite pinning for well over 5 sec. Please note the definition given for pinning in the rules is not synonymous with contact.


#13

But by pushing them into that corner they are still “Hoarding them” which I technically was match affecting because if they had to back off to not be hoarding cones we could’ve also picked up our mobile goals.


#14

I don’t think the rule says they have to benefit does it? Just that they can’t plow them into a specific location, which they do.

I know some other teams in the area are more careful of doing this strategy since they were told it was hoarding cones by other referees.


#15

Pinning – A Robot is considered to be Pinning an opposing Robot if it is inhibiting the movement of an opponent Robot while the opposing Robot is in contact with the foam playing surface and another Field Element. We all agree on this definition as it is stated in the rules. But if you look closer at the video and see the position of the blue bot it has a cone between it and the field element - (the wall). By the definition of pinning above (that we agreed on earlier remember?) it is not pinning as a cone is not considered a field element.
Definition of a field element: Field Element – The foam field tiles, field perimeter, Loader , Stationary Goal , Starting Bar , pipes that demarcate the Goal Zones , and all supporting structures. And it would not be trapping as the blue robot has an avenue of escape-backing up. So is this legal? And if so what does this do for the game as we all get ready for state and regional competitions?


#16

https://vexforum.com/t/answered-clarification-on-pinning-and-sg15/42726/1
Looks like this came up 5 months ago. Wow


#17

Not sure how it would be a DQ considering the stack being knocked down was not match affecting and neither was blue mogo going into the 5 point zone also was not match affecting. There was nothing else that was even close to being a violation. I did find it interesting that someone kept saying that blue was pinning red when clearly, red was not pinned. Red was able to move backwards without any restriction. Red just could not go where it wanted to go.


#18

@TPR100 it is perfectly fine to plow cones to a specific location so long as you do not keep the other team from getting them. That was addressed early in the season in the official Q&A. The fact that the cage was around some cones could be a problem if the other alliance was trying to get them but that was only briefly and not when the other alliance was trying to get the cones.


#19

By rule, it’s not “Red’s fault.” Blue definitely gets the blame for Red’s stack falling. However, (by rule) the only thing that matters is whether the stack falling was match affecting. And it wasn’t; there simply were not enough points in the stack to swing the win to Red had they been scored.

I didn’t look at pinning carefully enough to render an opinion on that; only on the fallen stack.


#20

Both robots from the Blue Alliance should have been dq’ed:
The pushbot for pinning
The other robot for touching the opponent 10 point zone starting bar.