Unofficial Response to "Is it QD (quality defense) or DQ (disqualification)"

Original thread:

This allegory is flawed because it misses the “Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the Head Referee’s discretion.” phrase in many rules. DQs certainly do not have to be because of match affecting rule violations.

In this situation the two robots blocking access to the scoring zones are clearly in violation of SG7, which states:

If at least one of the robots did not clear the area when instructed to by a referee then a DQ would be very likely.

While the above behavior is certainly in violation of SG7, I fail to see how it is related to

Pinning is clearly defined as:

In your example the offensive robot is not touching any field objects other than the tile and thus this would not qualify as pinning.
Even if it was contacting the stationary goal, it would likely still not be pinning as a pin requires the pinned robot to be attempting to escape. This is noted in this ruling:

The definition of Trapping clearly states:

In your example, the defending robot has an easy avenue for escape, that being the other side of the stationary goal.

I disagree. The rules and rulings are quite clear as to whether the above interactions are legal or not.

By this definition PTC checks that occur at worlds and regional events are damaging motors. Similarly if your definition of damage was followed then pushing matches in driver control would result in a violation of G12 as PTCs are often tripped during such interactions. As it is, such interaction is not illegal and therefore stalling out your opponents motors in autonomous is not illegal.

Onto the video examples:

I’m not sure which example this is a demonstration of, but the red robot violated SG10, and as stated in the comments the Autonomous bonus was awarded to Blue, so I am not sure what you have a problem with here.

While I agree that the red robot’s actions of pushing were questionable, the blue robot also committed a possibly worse violation by entangling and trapping the red robot for over 45 seconds. The blue robot could have continued scoring as fast a possible and had they won the match taken a case to the head referee that the cone hoarding caused the loss of the match. As it is, however, that blue robot spent 45 seconds doing nothing when they could have been scoring points.

As for the video’s title of “Vex in the zone loader pushing” I do not see anything illegal with the red robot pushing the blue robot away from the loader.

While the red robot did indeed violate sg 10, this violation was temporary and certainly did not last the duration of the spectators’ complaints. I agree that the referee missed that call, however, it doesn’t matter anyway since the blue alliance won with a score of 90-64 (VexDB | 1533M QF 2-1RoboSLAM). Had the red alliance won there would have been an argument for a DQ against red.

I would like to end this reply with the note that I have been on the receiving end of all of these interactions and every one of them (within memory) was ruled consistently with how I have laid out the rules, with the legal ones often costing me the match.

I would also like to state that it is not at all my intention to be disrespectful in this reply and that I hope anything I have said is not taken to be disrespectful.

It’s more flawed because if a robot breaks a rule playing defense, the goal of their defense is to be match affecting. A better metaphor would be, “Tickets will be issued if speeding prevents the driver form being late.” There is no point speeding, then. Either you are late anyway, or were going to be on time anyway, or you will get a ticket.

Side note: I can recall only one instance where defense may have been better than offense for an alliance, and it was only because it was the first tournament of the season, and robots were underdeveloped. All the defense was totally legal.