Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

In the past, pinning required contact with a field element like the field border or field objects. Here is an example from 2012:

This year the blue box states that if the robot cannot move, it is pinned. It is still a bit hazy. For instance, if you are T-boned, and can move in an arc a few feet forward and back, but cannot escape, are you pinned? How much movement is required to not be pinned?

Clarification is needed.

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

There is a related concept of "Blockade" where 2 or more robots box another robot into a confined area.

IMHO, if 1 robot boxes another robot into a confined area (can only move back a few feet either way), that is a PIN using the Blockade concept.

Note: Pin is "to prevent or stop something from moving". "moving" has been liberally interpreted not as "unable to move", but more not able to move a material amount.

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

Pinning is a little harder to call 100% consistently, both in FRC and VEX. From I've seen, most refs will start the pin count at least a couple seconds late, which can be unfair to the teams being pinned. It's just one of those things where it's hard for the refs to watch everything at once, and start to call it exactly when it happens

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

I'm finding that at some regional events it is being called too quickly. I'm just not sure that a robot that is not trying to leave the batter because they are trying to shoot should also get a pinning count started the instant a defensive robot bumps them.

https://youtu.be/UXlU0X1x9Tg?t=1m42s

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

Nothing in the rules require the robot being pinned having to "try" to move. A robot can sit on the batter the entire match. As soon as a robot from the other alliance gets close enough to block it it, the PIN starts.

The PIN rule does not require "intent", unlike other rules that require a "strategy", etc.

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

There is nothing in the rules that says the pin has to start as soon as the robot gets close enough to block it either. The rule says: For example, a
ROBOT parked right behind an opponent that is on the BATTER could
be considered pinning because the dividers on the BATTER and the
parked ROBOT prevent the opponent from moving.

I think the key word is could. The rules leave it open to interpretation whether it should be called a pin or not. If the ref thinks that the position prevents the opponent from moving it should be a pin. I'm seeing alot of examples where it seems the refs are assuming even the slightest contact has trapped the robot against the batter, even when the robot isn't even trying to escape the batter.

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

I will try to explain my point of view here, as simply as I can.

The team was free to move off of the batter, at any time they felt like (and did by going along the side of the defending robot with minimal turning). There was no robot actually blocking them into the batter (looking at the video). Therefore, in this specific situation, you can make a really good case that there wasn't pinning. Why? Because they were not blocked in. No pin. That's my point of view. If it is unclear, then I will be forced to go to the Thing Explainer dictionary.

Was there a robot playing defense? Yes. Was there a robot pinning? Me looking at the video, and the ref right there looking at it, saw it differently. We both wear the stripes (though not at the same event). You see? Whether the pin actually started is up for debate, and when is up for debate. (It's not inconceivable that it actually started a second or so earlier.) It was called at the event as a pin that was started and ended after 2 seconds.

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

Are we looking at the same video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXlU...utu.be&t=1m42s

330 did not move off until after 5845 moved and the pin count was over.

5845 made contact with 330 at 1:46 in the video. Immediately thereafter, the Ref started the Pin Count, at which point 5845 made contact again with 330. 5845 then backed off, but it did not back off 6', so the Ref continued the count. When 5845 finally separated by 6', the Ref then waived off the Pin.

During the first 2 bumps (and an almost 3rd bump), 330 was not "free to move off the batter". After the bumps, 330 could have moved, but 5845 had to move back by 6' in order to have the pin count called off. Once the pin starts, it is not merely giving the other robot room to move, you have to give it 6' of room to move.

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

"To prevent or stop something from moving" = PIN

More than 5 seconds then it should be called. The bot does not have to be touching anything to be considered pinned.

And yes every ref will call it the way they interpret this guideline from the actual game manual.

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

No, we aren't. I was looking at the originally posted PNW video, which is where I made the statement that you disagreed with. The video you link wasn't brought up until 9 hours or so after the post I was directly responding to.

If you want to use that video, be advised that you can see me in there, and yes I was looking that way (though I wasn't signalling pin, I had other responsibilities that match). So you may want to use a different one.



Just to be picky, you don't have to give them 6' of room if they start chasing you.

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

330 would have stayed there to shoot that high goal its not like they would have backed up at that point anyhow (thus not pinned as 330 chose to stop) and if you watch the video they were more concerned with lining up the HG shot which they missed then immediately exited...I do not see that as a "pin" at all and blue had every right to try to disrupt that shot as they did by contacting 330 to try to knock off their shot. 330 moved when they wanted to freely after. Calling a pin foul there was not warranted IMO and looks as if the refs called it correctly.

I saw a similar play where the bot had every opportunity to move but chose to stay put to make a HG shot... if a bot chooses to stay put how can a pin ever be called? Since the definition states the offender "prevents or stops" not the bot who is deciding to stop.

For me a pin count would start IF the bot being pinned seems stopped against their will and cannot move due to the direct actions of another bot. Otherwise I would not call pin IF the bot chose to stop and was not trying to go anywhere. I would not call a bump a pin either to try to knock off a shot. If a bot is attempting a shot at the HG great ..that does not give then immunity from contact or pin protection. IMO

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

I don't think the robot doing the "pinning" in this case should be penalized because the "pinned" team doesn't have the driver skill to get out of a tbone.

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

I would have called this (the second video) the same way as the red headed ref. Preventing a robot from moving does not require that robot attempting to move. 330 is prevented from moving at 1:46 even though they make no attempt to do so.

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

even more interesting is in that match the red alliance should have recieved a climb due to contact in the last 20 seconds of the match by the blue defensive robot. While it didn't change the outcome of the match, It couldn't be more obvious that there was a foul there and i am shocked it wasn't called.

Re: pinning being called consistently?
 

Ok. My post #23 was in response to your post #21, which quoted my response #20, which quote your response #19 that had the video link. I presumed your response #19 was commenting on your video link, not the original video link.

With respect to the original video link (post #1), I can understand "why" the Ref started the Pin Count. I can also understand "why" other people may disagree.

What I think the Ref saw was that Red may have been in contact with Blue in such a way that prevented blue from moving (I believe some people call it a t-bone pin). In fact, there was an angle where Red momentarily contacted the corner of the bot (which would have really prevented Blue from moving). Red also stayed in contact with Blue in such a way that, if Red was pushing forward, it could have prevented Blue from moving backwards off the batter: Blue's drive train (from a stopped position) may have not been able to overcome the side force of the Red robot in order to start moving backwards.

I can see how Ref'ing "in real time" it becomes a judgement call whether Blue was somehow prevented from moving, thus a pin. With the benefit of video replay, it is fairly obvious - "no". It just may not be so obvious when you are watching it real time.

IMHO, I think Ref's should error on the side of starting the Pin Count, and figuring it out as they are counting. You can always waive off a Pin Count, you can't go back and retroactively add time to the Pin Count (start the count at 2).

Just like there is the Crossing Rule that gives robots a no-contact zone in the Outer Works to shoot from, robots can also expect to use the pin/batter blue box to be able to aim during a 3 second no-contact period when a robot backs off to avoid a pin foul.