Unofficial Defensive strategy

They were not touching the 10 pt Zone. They were touching the starting bar. It would be a possible DQ for touching the starting bar while the other alliance is picking them while trying to score the mobile goal, and also the tipping thing.

Sorry I edited my post, Im a sped

Did the refs call any of these calls? Sorry I’m watching again with no audio so I can’t tell.

Part of G<12> states “In the Zone is intended to be an offensive game. Teams that partake in a solely defensive strategies will undergo extra scrutiny in regard to <G12>. In the case where referees are force to make a judgement call on interaction between a defensive and offensive Robot, the referees will err on the side of the offensive Robot.” Should this be factored in?

I feel the true spirit of engineering design and autonomous programming is lost when a robot is designed to play nothing but a purely defensive strategy. I also feel sorry for the referees that must make these judgement calls.

This should be factored in, but only to the extent that this rule states. Too often I have seen this used to justify making all defense illegal. Nope - it just means that the offensive robot gets the judgement calls.

I agree that teams that solely devote themselves to defense (when this defense requires no real engineering, unlike this ) are losing out in the long run, but if it’s legal, it’s ethical (in competition).

First of all, there was NO pinning or trapping by the blue robot. The red robot was always able to move even it it was not where it wanted to move. The ref erred a couple of times by telling the blue robot he was pinning and once by starting a count when, at that point, there was not even any contact and the red robot was actually moving back proving it was not pinned.

There was a violation by the blue robot during autonomous. He pushed a blue mogo into the red goal zone. That should have, by rule, given the red alliance the auton bonus (but the refs seemed to have missed that) as did the red alliance because they were not pointing it out to the refs.

Assuming the refs had gotten the autonomous correct, the score would have been 70-43. Since you are allowed to descore mobile goals and even allowed to remove mobile goals from a robot, the only points in question are the potential points from the nested cones on the stack from the red robot. The video is a bit fuzzy but it looks like there were 12 cones. That would be a potential for 24 points. Since the mogo did end up in the 5 point zone, the red alliance would also have gotten the 5 point high stack bonus for 29 points. 29+43 is 72 so if they would have scored the auton correctly, it would be match affecting. Since they did not, well, that is a 20 point swing the other way.

The red team should have been talking to the refs at the end of autonomous about the blue mogo in their goal zone.

By the way, that was great defense by the cage bot. If it had not pushed its own mogo into the red goal zone, there would be no argument for the red team to have won. That is especially true if the alliance partner would have simply parked rather than tried to play defense at the end.

I don’t know if this is just me, but at the end when the red robot places the Mogo down, they place it on top of the blue robot’s chassis on an angle. When they back-up, the mobile goal is no longer supported and falls over. During this time the blue robot is not moving and the red robot is entirely responsible for the cones falling over (the blue robot is not in an illegal position or preforming an illegal maneuver.)

Would this be considered causing an opponent to violate a rule? Immediately after their stack falls over, they point the finger at blue in what appears to be an attempt to get them DQ’d for “tipping the stack”.

Honestly, I don’t think I see any violations by blue except for pushing the red mogo into their own 10pt zone in auto (non-match affecting.) Pinning requires confinement (didn’t happen) and descoring requires action (didn’t happen.)

well it’s still technically because blue was blocking the red teams 10pt bar. And also the reason they went on the side of red for the stack is due to SG12

You can touch the opposing starting bar.

Yes on the pinning. There was pinning - the referee called it. Whether it was an appropriate call doesn’t matter (I lean toward yes though). Then the pinning only ends after the offending robot moves a tile away - which they never did.

So, yes, unquestionably - should have been a DQ on the blue push bot.

Also, hoarding should likely have been called based on as they actively guarded the pushed cones in the corner.

It is not a pin as long as there is an avenue of escape.
For this instance, the red robots could have reverse out of the situation. So it is definitely not a pin.

But the last part when the stack fell down - i must say that i wouldnt be surprise if a DQ is called against the blue. Split-second decision-making for the referee… the referee might easily interpreted it as the blue causing the stack to fall.

But the blue cagebot did nothing that is worth DQ though.

  1. It is definitely a pin if the referee calls it a pin - and he did. You can clearly hear that on the audio.
  2. Would I have called it? Maybe. It is a judgment call as there is a second or two when the blue robot pins the red robot against the wall. Hard to see on video, but I don’t think that the red robot could back up at that time.

Again, if the referee calls a pin, it is a pin. At that point, the robot doing the pinning HAS to back up and they didn’t.

Also, with the clarification of hoarding that I linked … wouldn’t that be hoarding?

“As explained in the referee training video that you referenced, hoarding requires two criteria - that the robot has plowed multiple Cones (into a corner), and is actively protecting them from the other alliance.”

I am not so sure about against the wall. Looks like there were lots of cones between the blue robot and the wall. And even at that few moments the cones weren’t there, the blue robot could have reverse out - there was a way out.
My take is - wrong call by the referee if he had called for a pin.

But as I mentioned earlier, I wouldn’t be surprise if it was a dq for the fallen stack though.

A pin can be against the cones. But, yes, a judgment call. However, since the referee called it - I would have been upset that the rules were not then followed.

Yes, I agree with you about the falling stack. Everything happens so quick - it is probably more likely than not that gets you a DQ. We have the benefit of the video to see that it was dropped on the opposing robot.

It is difficult to call regarding the hoarding.
The robot was pushing the mobile goals - the cones were in the way.
And the robot was blocking the opponents from accessing the mobile goals.

Let’s be honest - we have seen robots plowing through and pushing cones more than what happened in the video, and nothing was called against those robots.

I’ve been a head referee at many events. At the end of the match, I would have talked with the referees: “What did you see?” and “What did you call?”

Since the call was pinning and there was no subsequent call that corrected it saying that it wasn’t, the blue robot needed to back away and didn’t. Almost certainly match affecting.

Along with the hoarding call (again, the refs would need to see it - can’t call what they didn’t see) - that blue robot should have been disqualified, thus disqualifying the alliance since it appears to be in the elimination rounds.

Please see this ruling…

It will only be considered as trapping if the robot has no avenue of escape (but it has never been ruled as a pin).
But for this case, the robots can escape.

But I do agree with you - it doesn’t matter whether it is a right or wrong call.
As Long as the referee says it is a pin, then the team needs to back off.

Play to the whistle.

Trapping and pinning are slightly different. The avenue of escape applies to trapping.

It is close at about the 1:17-1:30 point of the video. Close enough that it could have been called. Once it is called, back off - the ref even tells them to back off.

I strongly encourage the refs to start a 5 second call with arm motions pointing at the offending robot to make it very clear, however it isn’t required - the offending robot has to know and play by the rules.

Defense is hard and they put themselves in position where a judgment call could go against them.