I believe their is a Q&A out there that addresses the cones between a robot and a field element. And I do believe that the resulting answer was that it would indeed be a pin considering that if the cones were not present the robot would be pinned to a field element.
We have found in tournaments that the biggest issue with pinning is that the refs don’t make the “pinning” robot back off far enough or for the required amount of time.
I believe so as well. I can’t seem to find it, but I believe that a pin can be called if a robot is pinning another between itself and a game element (cone/goal) if it that game element is touching a field element (perimeter).
To summarize, IMHO, looking at the video:
Red should have been awarded autonomous due to the autonomous affecting warning that blue pushed their mobile goal into the red 5 pt zone - easily autonomous affecting.
After watching the entire video, I would say that it wasn’t hoarding. Hoarding is only in reference to cones (not goals). At no point did the blue robot push cones to the corner and protect them - only two mobile goals. (personally, I think goals should be hoarding as well, but that isn’t the rules).
The blue robot was called for a pin by the referee (a judgement call) and did not backup the necessary distance for the pin to end therefore should have been called for a 5 second pin. If the referee says that they called pinning because they believe the red robot couldn’t move (even for just a second) when being pressed against the cone and wall, this would be a match affecting alliance DQ.
The stack falling at the end is a great question. Likely 9 times out of 10 that would also get called against the blue robot, but, with the help of video, you can see that the red team put the goal with the cones on the blue robot which resulted in the fall. I would gather the referees to talk about what they saw. Referees can’t call what they don’t see, but if they saw the goal being placed on the blue robot, it would be hard to DQ the blue robot.
I’m not a defense basher (although it annoys me), but that stack falling at the end appears to me to be handled by this Q&A. I believe that if a team is trying to set down a stack in their scoring zone a defensive robot trying to stop them is in great jeopardy of breaking the rules. There is an awful lot of “ref judgment” when it comes to defense.
<SG5> Robots may not intentionally or accidentally, indirectly or directly, remove Cones from an opponent’s Stack.
a. A Robot that accidentally knocks over an opponent’s Goal, causing Cones to be removed, would be in violation of this rule. Teams should exercise extreme caution when interacting with or around opponent Goals.
If the descoring was due to indirect contact by the opposing Robot, as your description appears to state, then yes, R2 would be considered in violation of <SG5>.
Being in this match they did call the tip against the blue alliance this is due to SG12 so we had the benefit of the doubt. They were not dq due to the fact that it was not match affecting. Although I think that they should change the rule that I’m elimination rounds it should be a DQ no matter what
I don’t think that would be a good idea because there have been teams that have made an honest mistake and knocked off one of the other teams cones but they still end up winning by a large margin. It would be unfair to dq the team for that.
It is clear that any pinning call was/would be a bad call in this match as there was no time the red robot lacked an way of escape. Where the refs made their first mistake, though, was awarding the auton to the blue alliance since they pushed their blue mogo into the red goal zone during auton making it an automatic win for red barring any similar infraction by red.
If the blue won autonomous, the cones at the end were not match affecting. If red won auton, then they were match affecting. Had this been called correctly from beginning to end, red would have won.
I really don’t know that we can tell. I’ve watched it a handful of times and there are a couple of points where it is close. Not sure I would have called it, but close enough that if someone else called it, I would have their back.
So, after the refs did call it (judgement call), there is no doubt that the pinning never ended.
Agreed. If the match had been called perfectly, the only violation on the cage bot would have been in the auton and the only solution would have been to give the auton to red. Aside from pushing the blue mogo into the red goal zone, the cage bot played a nearly perfect game and certainly did not violate any rules. That was really good driving.
I did see a potential violation on the part of the red robots when both bots were used to restrict the movement of the cage bot. It was for such a short time, it would only warrant a warning at most, though.
At the end of the game, the other blue bot would have a violation for the descore, but since the auton had gone to blue, it was not match affecting.
It’s more of a problem on the referees behalf. For example with the pinning, he referee can tell them to move away all he wants but if he does not count down and tell them to put their remotes down, there is nothing stopping the pin.
There is no basis for the ref to tell someone to put their remotes down for pinning. The robot would have to be in danger of damaging another robot or the field in order for the ref to call a disablement. That really has nothing to do with pinning.