Trapping an opponents ball

[Littleboy]

I have seen this strategy used several times in the past few weeks, however it has not been penalized like I believe it should be.
Robots (usually 1 or 2) block the ball from the opposing alliance's ball in a corner to prevent it from being scored. I have seen this done for between 10 seconds and half of the match, but I have not seen a call against this. The final match (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf7x1JZFMTM&list=PLwVbv8uBkn0jIXmjrMKGJaJFSMoiY5r0o) of the West Michigan district is the only video example I can find of this, but I have seen it multiple other times on various webcasts. To me, it seems completely unGP and a strategy that no one should ever consider doing.
G12 seems to be the only rule against it.

An ALLIANCE may not POSSESS their opponent’s BALLS. The following criteria define POSSESSION :

“carrying” (moving while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT or holding the BALL in or on the ROBOT),
“herding” (repeated pushing or bumping),
“launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT), or
“trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).


Violation: FOUL, if unintentional and inconsequential (i.e. does not significantly impact MATCH play). TECHNICAL FOUL per consequential instance. TECHNICAL FOUL per extended instance. If strategic, RED CARD for the ALLIANCE.


Examples of BALL interaction that are not POSSESSION are

A. “bulldozing” (inadvertently coming in contact with BALLS that happen to be in the path of the ROBOT as it moves about the FIELD) and

B. “deflecting” (a single hit to or being hit by a BALL that bounces or rolls off the ROBOT or a BALL slips through the grips of a ROBOT without arresting the BALL'S momentum).

A BALL that becomes unintentionally lodged on a ROBOT will be considered POSSESSED by the ROBOT. It is important to design your ROBOT so that it is impossible to inadvertently or intentionally POSSESS an opponent’s BALL.

The intent of G12 is to prevent an ALLIANCE from inhibiting an opponent’s ability to interact with their BALL, but accommodate accidental and inconsequential actions by way of fewer FOUL points. Actions which are perceived as consequential and extended are distinct violations, as there are scenarios where POSSESSION of an opponent’s BALL could be consequential or extended but not necessarily both.
*emphasis mine

Is it not being called because the robots are not actually contacting the opposing alliance's balls? Is this really the way anyone wants the game to be played?

[Steve W]

Red card given in Quarter Finals in Montreal.

[The other Gabe]

yeah i've been seeing this happen occasionally, especially by strategically defensive teams (my best example is 4060, since they were at all of our districts- not attacking them, I happen to love their strategy and style of play)- they often would do that for a small length of time, but far more often, they just outmaneuvered slow robots
I think the reason it's often not called is because the Refs cannot determine if it is actually trapping, or just the inability of a robot to outmaneuver the defender, and get to the ball; and most often it is a combination of both

[Wetzel]

Red card was given for this during an early match at Chesapeake.

[Caleb Sykes]

Has anyone ever witnessed an offensive robot getting credited for a possession in this way? That would have been a good strategy for me to suggest to some of our partners with bad intakes.

As the rules are written, possessions should be credited the same regardless of the color of the ball, but I haven't necessarily seen that in watching matches.

[BlueShark]

For possession, it would be much easier to just inbound the ball off your team mates robot, as in throw a ball at a moving robot on ur team = 1 assist, then pickup by another robot = 2 assist.
I tried using this for my teams final matches, but you have to make sure that a robot is near the inbounding hp, which makes captains communicating crucial for this to happen.

[bduddy]

For possession, it would be much easier to just inbound the ball off your team mates robot, as in throw a ball at a moving robot on ur team = 1 assist, then pickup by another robot = 2 assist.
I tried using this for my teams final matches, but you have to make sure that a robot is near the inbounding hp, which makes captains communicating crucial for this to happen.Simply throwing the ball against a robot should not count as possession.

I've witnessed one or two teams at SVR that appear to be intentionally using the trapping strategy (on their own balls).

[MrTechCenter]

Has anyone ever witnessed an offensive robot getting credited for a possession in this way? That would have been a good strategy for me to suggest to some of our partners with bad intakes.

As the rules are written, possessions should be credited the same regardless of the color of the ball, but I haven't necessarily seen that in watching matches.

Exactly. I've seen offensive teams credited with possession by simply pushing the ball around whereas the same thing was said as just "bulldozing" for opposing robots.

[Matt C]

It was called many times at the Long Island Regional, mostly when a robot would isolate the ball by the corner lower goal by parking in front of it, not necessarily touching it. That would be the "overt isolation" part of the rule.

[Keegbot]

We had the happen to us once at Hawaii where our robot was not able to maneuver around the robot trapping the ball. It ate up a lot of time but the robot left once they needed the assist and truss points. I was really frustrated but when I asked why it wasn't called, I was told they couldn't call it because the robot wasn't touching the ball.

[waialua359]

We had the happen to us once at Hawaii where our robot was not able to maneuver around the robot trapping the ball. It ate up a lot of time but the robot left once they needed the assist and truss points. I was really frustrated but when I asked why it wasn't called, I was told they couldn't call it because the robot wasn't touching the ball.

Its part of the game and its effective defense.
Teams employed that a ton of times in our previous 2 regionals, especially knowing how we score.
Good driving and team execution can counter it.

A big thing to remember that you pointed out, is that if 1 or 2 defenders are preventing you from acquiring your ball, they are not working towards their own assist/truss points during that time.

A good alliance is able to always apply the transition quickly from offense/defense or defense/offense constantly.

[BlueShark]

Simply throwing the ball against a robot should not count as possession.

I've witnessed one or two teams at SVR that appear to be intentionally using the trapping strategy (on their own balls).

launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT)

Well the ball moves with the robot so it should be a possession?

[bduddy]

launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT)

Well the ball moves with the robot so it should be a possession?The rule refers to a mechanism in motion, not a ball.

[BlueShark]

The rule refers to a mechanism in motion, not a ball.

I thought the robot was a mechanism? especially if its a net?
Anyways, Ive seen the call happen before at regionals without the ball being cradled by the robot, but instead just bouncing off of the robot

HP throws ball to robot, robot pushes ball to next robot, this should be an assist right?

[Siri]

I thought the robot was a mechanism? especially if its a net?
Anyways, Ive seen the call happen before at regionals without the ball being cradled by the robot, but instead just bouncing off of the robotA robot is not a mechanism in motion relative to itself. (Nothing is in motion relative to itself.) The launching definition was updated to avoid the "I moved my robot, I hit the ball, I launched it". Any bulk robot motion relative to a moving (vis–à–vis a trap) floor (vis–à–vis a carry) ball must meet herding.

Anyways, Ive seen the call happen before at regionals without the ball being cradled by the robot, but instead just bouncing off of the robot

HP throws ball to robot, robot pushes ball to next robot, this should be an assist right?If the pushing is herding (repeated pushing or bumping), then yes. If it is a single short hit, no. The non-definitions of "short" and "repeated" are one of the many reasons this game is so unnecessarily aggravating.


Regarding defensive (opposing ball color) trapping, in MAR* it's typically called regardless of out-maneuverability, though standard fouls for it are rare. (Typically the call waits until it's consequential--deliberately blocking an opposing robot from its ball and/or extended.) Unintentional non-extended calls are rarer.

I don't think I've ever seen offensive trapping called in MAR, despite Q&Aing that it is indeed possible. Cross-event inconsistency on possessions is incredibly frustrating.

*after Week 1.

[Team3844]

We made a truss shot in the last seconds of a qualifying match at Smoky Mountain Regional that was caught by the opposing alliance. Not a passive catch but a totally drawn in ball. The penalty won the match for our alliance.:ahh:

[Keegbot]

A good alliance is able to always apply the transition quickly from offense/defense or defense/offense constantly.

I agree. The strategy worked well. We aimed to do this in the elimination matches but our alliance seemed to have some trouble transitioning from defense to offense.

[Cataclysmatic]

Reading all the responses, I am starting to actually begin to get a little more confused than before... what would your opinions be on this match recording for the time period 0:27-0:40 or so, and 0:56-1:01?

From what I can tell off responses, some would considering it isolation (foul) others would just consider it defense, so just trying to clarify a few things up. Thanks :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgWn9SDZCes&list=UUUMVNOXi3lls3R8Ibc_-61w

[Richard Wallace]

... what would your opinions be on this match recording for the time period 0:27-0:40 or so, and 0:56-1:01?I don't see any fouls from the camera's angle. Of course the referee in that corner would have a different perspective.

I was a referee during Week 5, and recall seeing similar play several times -- it only warranted a G12 foul when the robot possessed a ball of the opposite color by trapping.

"Overt" isolation is not clearly defined -- our Head Ref's interpretation of "overt" was "we will know it when we see it". At that event, we never did.

[EricH]

I don't see any fouls from the camera's angle. Of course the referee in that corner would have a different perspective.

I agree. As a ref myself (Week 1, Week 4), I would have called that good defense, no foul. The key reason for that is that the red alliance WAS able to get through to the ball at all times, even if it would have meant moving around the blue robot. (If the blue robot had then started moving to block the red alliance from going around, that would have probably been worthy of a technical for intentional possession. But they didn't.)

And yes, I did call a few trapping calls...

[Cataclysmatic]

Thank you for the responses, both of you being refs gives me a good indication of how it was called/should be called from multiple opinions. I also enjoy the compliment of good defense haha :D

Thank you!

[Oblarg]

On defense, a large part of our strategy is getting between the opponent and their ball. It's a crucial part of slowing them down.

That said, because of this rule we take care not to trap the ball; we always leave a fair bit of space between our robot and the opponent's ball. I imagine this rule as disallowing parking diagonally in the corner blocking off access to an opponent's ball, not a broad ban on all actions that prevent the opposing alliance from picking up their ball for significant periods of time. If we're able to keep a robot off of their ball in a mostly open field by virtue of a fast, powerful drive and a good driver, why shouldn't that be legal? It hasn't been called as a penalty against us yet, so we imagine we're doing it right.

[rich2202]

Reading all the responses, I am starting to actually begin to get a little more confused than before... what would your opinions be on this match recording for the time period 0:27-0:40 or so, and 0:56-1:01?



0:27-0:40, there always seem to be a path to the ball (a 2nd red could have gone on the other side of the blue bot). So, no trapping there.

0:56-1:01 is the problem child. There were instances when there was no path to the ball.

If 2 Blues are blocking access to a Red Ball, then that is more Blockading than trapping. Note: There only has to exist a path to the ball to avoid blockading. Moving to cut off one path, and in the process leaving another path open, is not blockading.

Trapping and Blockading is more: If the bots remain motionless, can the opponent get to their ball. In 0:56-1:01, Blue was diagonally blocking access to the ball, and there was no physical path to the ball.

At 1:10-1:20 in the original poster's video, a blue bot is blocking red from getting to a red ball. However, nothing prevents another red bot from going around and getting to the ball. Thus, not trapping nor blockading.

[mathking]

At Queen City, the way we tried to call this, and the way we explained it to the drive teams is pretty much as others have said. Overt isolation requires there not to be any path to the ball. I don't think we had any defensive possession calls in such situations on just one robot where it did not pin the other side's robot to the wall in the midst of playing defense. There were a couple of times when blockading was called because two robots blocked all avenues to the ball. Usually we tried to think of this call by asking "Would we have awarded possession to the offense for the action?"

I agree that 0:56 to 1:01 is very close, and I could see calling it either way. It looked like 4296 came close to pinning the ball against the side, and there was a (short) time when there was no path to the ball. I think that if the ref in the corner indicated that the ball was not pinned, we would not have called it. The time when the path to the ball was blocked was very short, we certainly wouldn't have called it a blue possession if that had been a blue ball.

[BBray_T1296]

This happened to us at Dallas (http://youtu.be/m97lNBf1b90?t=2m22s) (note, we are on the RED team)

They received no penalty, and although they were trapping the ball, it did not stop us

[The other Gabe]

Has anyone ever witnessed an offensive robot getting credited for a possession in this way? That would have been a good strategy for me to suggest to some of our partners with bad intakes.

As the rules are written, possessions should be credited the same regardless of the color of the ball, but I haven't necessarily seen that in watching matches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0LFdVrL54o& this is the closest i've seen to trapping used as a possesion (it's in the video at some point, don't remember where)

[Taylor]

If possession is defined that way, would it not work both ways?
Example: The human player deposits the ball in the corner. An offensive BLT comes and shields the ball so that no other robot can get to it. The BLT's partner then gets the ball and goes into the white zone. Does the alliance get credit for the assist?
If not, then there should be no penalty for a defensive robot blocking access to a game ball.
If so, then this would change the strategies of A BUNCH of teams this year. It also begs the question of how long a ball must be shielded before it qualifies as possessed.

[Siri]

If possession is defined that way, would it not work both ways?
Example: The human player deposits the ball in the corner. An offensive BLT comes and shields the ball so that no other robot can get to it. The BLT's partner then gets the ball and goes into the white zone. Does the alliance get credit for the assist?
If not, then there should be no penalty for a defensive robot blocking access to a game ball.
If so, then this would change the strategies of A BUNCH of teams this year. It also begs the question of how long a ball must be shielded before it qualifies as possessed.Taylor, yes, there are events out there that have called offensive traps as assist-eligible possessions. I've seen it consistently for physical holding* and less consistently but still deliberately for overt isolation. G12d can have a very low or an infinitely high offensive threshold, depending on your event.

You are unsurprisingly correct that it results in fundamentally different strategies. If you'll allow me to presume, I anticipate your "but that's nuts [the inconsistency]" reaction is also entirely on the mark.

*Further, 1511's posting about touch-and-go strategy in which they drove up an held the ball against an alliance BLT for a BLT possession. There's no G12d field element in the picture at all. I cannot process this one. [EDIT to clarify: It's all ally robot-ally robot, one of whom is carrying it, shielding their own ball. That said, <3 1511. We love you guys, and I'm glad this is working for you. It's Q&A legal by A415 and a great idea. I just wish the rules would enforce is consistently.]
d. “trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).

[rich2202]

An offensive BLT comes and shields the ball so that no other robot can get to it.

Note: There is no purpose to the move because the opponent cannot play the ball.

Offensive trapping is specific: "against a field element".

What people call defensive trapping is more a variation of Blockading. If Blue Bot positions itself so that there is no path for a red bot to get to a red ball, then that is a G25 blockading violation (stop the flow of the match), and not a G12 possession (trapping) violation.

[Matt C]

Offensive trapping is specific: "against a field element".


It's also listed as "overt isolation" of the ball.

[Siri]

Note: There is no purpose to the move because the opponent cannot play the ball.

Offensive trapping is specific: "against a field element".

What people call defensive trapping is more a variation of Blockading. If Blue Bot positions itself so that there is no path for a red bot to get to a red ball, then that is a G25 blockading violation (stop the flow of the match), and not a G12 possession (trapping) violation.Correct, the only purpose of this action is to be credited with the assist, which itself mandates an "attempt to shield [the ball(s)]".

Recall that there is an "or" after "FIELD element" ("FIELD element or ROBOT"). A second robot, by Q415. But why would I be attempting to shield my own ball by trapping a ball I am already carrying against another robot (Q415)? Why would I attempt to shield my own ball at all--other than to get credited with the assist?

To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything illegal or getting undue G12 credit. The Q&A has cleared offensive trapping, including 1511's very awesome touch-and-go. I just don't get the "attempt to shield".

It's also listed as "overt isolation" of the ball....Against a field element or robot, unless I'm parsing the "or" incorrectly. (Fortunately, there are 4 of them in this 20 word statement.)

[Kris Verdeyen]

The trouble with the trapping call is the same as "damaging contact".

If I play weak offense (whether I'm capable of more or not) to try to get to a ball behind you, it might look like it's impossible. I've seen a few of these called when one robot is stopped next to their opponents' ball, and the offensive team, instead of attempting to drive around, sits there. As soon as they stop driving, the "trapping" call is made.

[Nathan Streeter]

My take it on it:

- At the events I have attended, G12d has not been applied the same for offensive robots as for defensive robots. Defensive robots will get a G12d called against them if they're driving side-to-side in front of a cornered ball with no gaps for a robot to sneak in. I've never seen (in-person) offensive robots get the possession just by bumbling with the ball against the wall or corner...

- I think the approach mentioned in the above paragraph used for defenders is the right approach (given the wording of the rules), and should be applied the same way to offensive possessions. Yes, this can have a significant impact on how easy it is for a team to get another assist. Regardless of how inconsistently it's been called in the past, this looks like the right way to call it going forward.

- I think using the "not enough room for a robot to get in if all robots were e-stopped at this moment" policy is the best way to determine if there has been a possession by G12d.* This should be applied to both offense and defense.

- Many times when two robots are playing defense on the opponents' ball (in the side-to-side, trapping opponents' ball in the corner variety) shouldn't be called as G12d, but might be called as "Blockading the field" (G25). The hairy line between them is hard to distinguish, but I suggest that if one of the two robots is so close that an opponent couldn't get in even if it's partner disappeared, then it should be G25; otherwise G12d.

- If a defensive robot is playing legal isolation defense (ball in corner, defender guarding from far enough away for a robot to slip in if defender is e-stopped), then the offensive robot pushes them into the ball, I lean towards thinking this shouldn't be called. The offensive robot pushed them against the ball, forcing the trap. I, personally, would call no foul... but would better understand if a ref called a G12d on the defender than if he/she called a G16 on the offender (since it's not a strategy the offensive side was using to get points).

I definitely hope that the DCMPs and CMPs will be called consistently (hopefully in the above manner), since all the refs should be much more experienced by this point and FIRST has fewer head refs to keep on the same page.

*I first heard this policy mentioned by Francis O'Rourke of FRC Game Sense (and 190... I think his CD name is Francis 134)... so I'll credit him with it. :-)

[rich2202]

- I think using the "not enough room for a robot to get in if all robots were e-stopped at this moment" policy is the best way to determine if there has been a possession by G12d.* This should be applied to both offense and defense.


This is where I draw the distinction between Trapping for Possession purposes, and Blockading.

If there is no path to the ball, I consider that a blockading foul on the defense. The offense cannot be called on blockading their ball.

For me, trapping requires physical contact.

“trapping” (overt isolation or holding
one or more BALLS
against
a FIELD element or ROBOT
in an attempt to shield them).

using the definition of "against" as being "in contact with" rather than the definition of "in an opposite direction to".

"opposite direction to" is covered by blockading (penalty on defense). So, using the "in contact with" interpretation would require the offense to have true control of the ball (not just isolation of the ball) in order to be considered a possession for assist purposes. Which, I think, is what most people think of as the common meaning of "assist".

[Nathan Streeter]

If there is no path to the ball, I consider that a blockading foul on the defense. The offense cannot be called on blockading their ball.

Yes, although this would mean that one robot could do it all match (blockading only applies to multi-robot scenarios per G25)... which I'm guessing you're fully aware of and is just part of the game in your mind.

For me, trapping requires physical contact.

I think there's an issue with various people reading G12d differently... and I'm honestly not entirely sure which way is correct. The way that I read it (and that I think makes sense) is that "trapping" can be committed one of two different ways "overt isolation" or "holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them." While I agree that formB (holding one or more BALLS against a field element...) does require physical contact, formA (overt isolation) doesn't. In fact, I think "overt isolation" even implies a lack of contact because of the word choice and because they could otherwise leave G12d as just formB.

Really, I hope the GDC is spending some time with the head refs on their weekly conference call to iron this out before DCMP... because it just isn't sufficiently clear. While the GDC seems to hate teams "lawyering" the rules... that's honestly what rules are for. If you leave rules to simply be "my interpretation of their intent" of the rules... they mean little because two interpretations can be shockingly different! If they are actually carefully defined (as the GDC does carefully define them), then carefully examining the words is just a good practice!

[rich2202]

Actually, I was thinking a 1 robot blockade is possible. If Red Robot leaves no path to the ball, then it is a blockade.

"ROBOTS on the same ALLIANCE may not blockade" - I do not think it requires more than 1 robot to be causing the blockade. I think the plural is to allow for the combination of more than one to also be considered a blockade.

"his rule has no effect on individual ROBOT-ROBOT interaction." - If Red Robot leaves no path to the ball, then it is Red Robot acting on all 3 Blue Robots (blocking all 3 blue robots from getting to the blue ball), and is no longer entitled to the exception.

"While the GDC seems to hate teams 'lawyering' the rules." - I think a few blue box clarifications is all that is needed, rather than trying to lawyer the rules. Or, they could remove Isolation from Trapping, and create an Isolation possession that only applies to Defensive possession.

[Francis-134]

Actually, I was thinking a 1 robot blockade is possible. If Red Robot leaves no path to the ball, then it is a blockade.

"ROBOTS on the same ALLIANCE may not blockade" - I do not think it requires more than 1 robot to be causing the blockade. I think the plural is to allow for the combination of more than one to also be considered a blockade.

"his rule has no effect on individual ROBOT-ROBOT interaction." - If Red Robot leaves no path to the ball, then it is Red Robot acting on all 3 Blue Robots (blocking all 3 blue robots from getting to the blue ball), and is no longer entitled to the exception.

"While the GDC seems to hate teams 'lawyering' the rules." - I think a few blue box clarifications is all that is needed, rather than trying to lawyer the rules. Or, they could remove Isolation from Trapping, and create an Isolation possession that only applies to Defensive possession.

In the past, blockading has only ever been called for multiple robots on the same alliance creating a multi-robot "wall" of a significant portion of the field. For example, in 2011 setting up two robots in front of minibot poles to stop teams from reaching the scoring rack. As far as I know, blockading has always been a full field or most of the field call.

I would imagine, and the head refs I have worked with mirror this view, that the trapping clause in the possession rule is more specific than blockading, and thus is the general ruling for a situation where an opponent attempts to shield a ball from an opponent. The blockading rule is meant to stop several robots from cutting off a significant portion of the field (which, IMHO, is impossible this year).

I tend to have a very liberal view trapping, but if a robot is simply making it difficult for another robot to get to a ball, that is not trapping, simply smart play. The best way to counter this is to never lose control of the ball, as we have seen many high power, ultimately winning alliances do this year.

Overt isolation is very much a "I know it when I see it" kind of thing. Attempting to specify it more would lead to more trouble than it's worth. As with real sports, referees are not just Penaltybot-4000's, they have to make judgments on what is happening and rule based on that judgment. This grey may be uncomfortable to those who wish there were a black-and-white call for every situation, but this game is not black-and-white.

[pandamonium]

To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything illegal or getting undue G12 credit. The Q&A has cleared offensive trapping, including 1511's very awesome touch-and-go. I just don't get the "attempt to shield".

...Against a field element or robot, unless I'm parsing the "or" incorrectly. (Fortunately, there are 4 of them in this 20 word statement.)

To clarify how this strategy was developed it was out of necessity. We had decided that we would set the goal of having the highest assist points at each regional we attended. We see great value in focusing on assists for not only ranking high but also performing well with any robot. It also takes the stress off of our drivers as they do not have to focus on W's and L's. We worked with the reffs to try out several other strategy's but this seemed to stick. It is actually pretty easy for the refs to get. Once we started employing it in every match we never missed a single assist call and got several 30 point cycles in a row. The flaw in our plan is it did not take long for everyone to know exactly what we were going to do. I recommend teams add this to the arsenal but it is not something that can be used every time. I think it is funny that something so simple kinda blew up.

[Siri]

To clarify how this strategy was developed it was out of necessity. We had decided that we would set the goal of having the highest assist points at each regional we attended. We see great value in focusing on assists for not only ranking high but also performing well with any robot. It also takes the stress off of our drivers as they do not have to focus on W's and L's. We worked with the reffs to try out several other strategy's but this seemed to stick. It is actually pretty easy for the refs to get. Once we started employing it in every match we never missed a single assist call and got several 30 point cycles in a row. The flaw in our plan is it did not take long for everyone to know exactly what we were going to do. I recommend teams add this to the arsenal but it is not something that can be used every time. I think it is funny that something so simple kinda blew up.This is in no way your fault, but it's really not simple. There are plenty of ref crews out there that haven't and wouldn't call these moves assists--there are many ref crews that didn't call offensive trapping possessions at all, regardless of question boxing. (The number of low goal sandwich-then-hit-ins people have argued for this year...) Heck, the thresholds for defensive trapping have been all over-and-off the map.

It's an awesome move and I'm sure you explained it to them well, but the acceptance of this at FLR really does highlight the utter inconsistency with which trapping, particularly offensive trapping, has been handled this year. I understand it's not obvious with FLR as the reference point, but that inconsistency is in fact a pretty big deal.

[Gregor]

Actually, I was thinking a 1 robot blockade is possible. If Red Robot leaves no path to the ball, then it is a blockade.

"ROBOTS on the same ALLIANCE may not blockade" - I do not think it requires more than 1 robot to be causing the blockade. I think the plural is to allow for the combination of more than one to also be considered a blockade.

Robots is plural, thus it requires more than one robot. If one robot is blocking the path to the ball, that's a G12 for "overt isolation."

Both have the same result, 1 tech foul (if the G12 was determined to warrent a TF, as opposed to a foul).