So I saw this video recently where someone had their robot lock onto a mobile stake on the back and drive around putting donuts onto the stake which got me wondering is there a way to stop them from well getting a lot of free donuts… If I was to pick up the top of the stake would that be considered me “holding” their robot even though they could just let go, It doesn’t really seem fair otherwise if the entire field is just robots that can move a stake around and put donuts on stake if we can’t stop them.
Are you contacting the opponent’s robot? No
So I think you answered your own question right there.
If you and an opponent robot are holding the same stake, that is not holding their robot, though depending on the ref it may be considered intentional entanglement.
Technically V5RC is supposed to be an offensive game, with robots competing to score the most points. Defensive play is allowed, but as shown in the game manual, offensive behavior is encouraged over defensive behavior (hence why rules try to protect robots trying to score stuff).
I feel like Vex should really favour both sides but thanks anyway for your interpretation of the rules. It does seem like I am grabbing the robot it is just grabbing the stop of the stake and I guess stopping them from moving. Its mostly their fault for not letting go and picking up another stake if they choose to complain.
They are though. A robot may possess only one mobile stake of the 5 available. There will always be one available to take in a defensive play. There should be plenty of back and forth mobile goal play (lesson learned from Tipping Point.)
2 Likes
I wonder if they will think pushing a mobile goal around = having a stake on you seeing in over under everyone pushed the Pou’s around even though you could only have 1 (I have no idea what the actual name of the playing pieces were I just call them Pou from that game)
I wouldnt be surprised if 1 team just pushes all the mobile goals around
You are aware that that this is a violation… Right?
1 Like
So in tipping point, there was not a possession limit on the number of mobile goals that you could possess.
The rules are very clear about what counts as holding another robot and what possession is so I highly recommend going over those parts of the game manual again.
Generally, from previous seasons, grabbing a mogo that another team has in an attempt to steal it is not considered entanglement. It can be a good strategy to try to steal them and even if they have scored several rings on the mobile goal you can put the goal in a negative multiplier zone.
1 Like
I don’t believe that grabbing onto the mobile goal would be entanglement, because that requires two robots to be entangled in each other so it would just be two robots fighting for a goal which is otherwise legal, just like the goal stalemates in tipping point. The definition of entanglement is simply: "A Robot status. A Robot is Entangled if it has grabbed, hooked, or attached to an opposing Robot or a Field Element. See rule <G13>." Note that a mobile goal is not a field element but a scoring object. (The definition of a field element is: "The Field, white tape, Ladder, Wall Stakes, and all supporting structures or accessories (such as Alliance Station posts, field monitors, etc.)." In any case grabbing onto a mobile goal in possession by another robot would not meet the definition of becoming entangled with that other robot. Additionally, you can’t be holding it because neither of you can move and you aren’t restricting their movement any more than you are restricting yours.
2 Likes
I dont remember seeing anything about pushing goals around in the manual only the same words written last year about the pou’s yet everyone last year still pushed them into the goal…
SG6 seems pretty clear to me. If you are holding a goal while pushing multiple, that is a clear-cut violation.
1 Like
If you click on the word possession on the VRC hub (or scroll down a lot on the manual) it takes you to a part where in red it says "the difference between possession and plowing is analogous to the difference between the terms “controlling” and “moving” and clicking on “plowing” says it is “A robot is considered to be plowing a scoring object if the robot is intentionally moving it in a preferred direction with a flat or convex face of the robot”… It seems to only be of violation of SG6 if I was to make some cone shaped base at the front of the robot to place the mobile goal into so it would move around with ease.
I think I see the misunderstanding.
You are correct that if you use a flat face to push multiple mogos, that is not a violation. Even a corralling claw would be a violation if you grabbed multiple mogos at a time.
I guess I just don’t really see the point in pushing around mobile goals. You won’t be able to score on them and they will be easy to steal.
It wouldn’t be a problem. If a ref ever argued that it was or was something else like trapping, as long as the other robot can let go it won’t be counted. Just like pinning against the matchload bar back in over under. As long as the other robot had triballs in the bucket it wasn’t pinning.