<G39> Pinning
 

First, I take it that the 5 second timer resets only when you back away for three seconds, regardless of how long you pinned the opposing robot. Second, if the robot is not touching a field element (I'm guessing floor excluded), it's not pinning, so you can push for as long as you want in that situatioin.

Also, if you are able to pin a robot indefinitely (e.g. tank pinning a killough drive in a corner), would you get only one penalty for this as long as they did not escape, or will you get one for every five seconds that you pin them for (kinda a stretch, but I can see someone using that interpretation)?

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

i think by my interpretation I think the timer resets after every penalty so if you pin a robot get a penalty and then continue to pin for another 5 seconds it will be another penalty.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Once you pin someone to the point where they are not moving, the timer starts when their movement is hindered. You back off to 6 feet and 3 seconds later you can go back to pinning.

This video might help you out- http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv.../2007cmp_sf2m2 Second 1:49 is when 910 starts pining 233.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

the definition of pinning is interpretted as the pinned robot is unable to travel anywhere. If there is just a pushing match at midfield, either robot can simply back up and go somewhere else.

The "each violation" is meant to imply that a penalty will be given every 5 seconds.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Is pinning against a 45* ramp, that your robot can't climb due to design constraints, really pinning?

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

yes, that's pinning. The ramp is a field element.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

If it's because of design constraints, you're probably not actually inhibiting the motion of the robot as it probably couldn't move on its own anyways (in fact, you might even be helping them get unstuck). However, the refs might not notice this and give you a penalty anyways since it's not possible to notice every single detail of a match.

Or are you saying that you're pushing them into the ramp and that they're not on the ramp?

As an addition, "each violation" can also be interpreted to only apply for each time you pin for more than 5 seconds.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

But the rule does not say that, so we don't know what the GDC is implying.

I think this is a clarification question for the Q&A.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

If your really this determined to pin other robots (though this is not gracious proffesionalism), you can have two robots from the same team pin two opposing robots for five seconds, then switch indefinately.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

But to switch, you'd have to back away. Unless what you mean is to make a robot sandwich, say 2 blue robots trap a red one between them, in which case there are no rules governing how long you can do that. Though a 2V1 situation isn't the best one to find yourself in... and you're on the receiving end as well as the giving end!

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

yes, you back away but then immediately can go pin the other robot.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

The rule states the PINNING means to keep the robot from moving for more than 5 seconds. If you do that. Then you are pinning. Thus violating the rules. If you let go. Let them move, then pin again. the timer starts over.

Knowing that, you can imply that if you pin for 4 seconds, then back off and let them move for a moment, then pin again. You have not violated the rules.

That being said, that is not what they mean. That is what the rules say, but the intention is to say "Don't pin. It isn't kind. It takes away from the fun of the game.

-Rion

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

I say NO pin. I even though the ramp may be a field element, the robot has an avenue of escape - up the ramp. Therefore the robot is NOT pinned.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Pinning against the bumps (ramps, whatever) is probably going to depend on the referees' discretion. If the pinned robot has a tank drivetrain and the treads are parallel to the ramp and it can't move, then it's probably pinning. If the treads can go up the ramp but the team just wants to go the other direction, it wouldn't be.
As somebody said above, pinning only happens when a robot can't move anywhere. Otherwise it's just blocking.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Pinning is defined as inhibiting the movement of another robot that is in contact with a field element, border, or goal. The bumps are a field element. Yes, there is an avenue of escape. No, the rules don't say, "except for against the bumps". Therefore, the robot is pinned, because it is in contact with a field element.

Now, you could easily argue the other way. So, here's a question for someone who can post on Q&A to post when it opens: "Under <G39>, pinning is defined as inhibiting the movement of another robot that is in contact with a field element, border, or goal. If a robot is trapped against a BUMP by another robot, it has an escape route (over the BUMP). Is this still pinning?"

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Wait for q/a or team update. Right now its unclear, and it will be fixed but for now its just speculation.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Would it be illegal to block your opponent's goal with a disabled robot (after the ten second grace period) The way I am interpreting the pinning rule in regards to this is that the robot is incapacitated, and thus you are not "inhibiting [its] movement"
What about pinning an opponents robot with a disabled robot?

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

And you know this how?

If the GDC didn't want pinning at all, why would they allow any amount of it?

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Because it will happen inadvertently and thats all they currently allow for.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Are you sure that the pinning rule only has 5 seconds of grace solely because of inadvertent pins?

The point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't go "Oh, the GDC wants the game to be played like this, so intentional pins are bad", but that the rules should be read as written when discussing strategy.

I know my team will take full advantage of four second pins this year.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

How can a bump in the road be a field element? It is just raised carpet. Not a wall.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

The rack, the ramps, the goals (2005), the central platform (2004), the towers...

What do all those have in common? Yep, they're field elements. None of them is a wall. The rack could even move. Yet you could pin against them (save for the rack). Why should the bump be any different?

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Could the robot drive over those items you mentioned.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Through the goals (unless you got them on the sides), over the 2004 platform, if you did it the right way, and the towers are this year, so you can go under. The ramps would have been a yes on the ramp face and a definite no on the floor by the sides. (Incidentally, the 2006 ramp was a no-pinning-penalty zone if both robots were off the carpet.)

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Yes, the 2005 goals could be driven over.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

We all say that the GDC is evil yes. But we are just kidding. This world still has morals, thus the reason that FIRST wants us to learn GP. How gracious is it to pin the other team for 4 seconds for a full minute? Morals are a big part of the rules. Where else did "Not in the spirit of the game' came from?

Even Disney's Pixar movie "Cars" understood this. The end scene, one car got destroyed because the ungracious attitude of another. Yet the main character which help him to still finish the race, was considered the winner.

So who would you respect, the team that wins; but was pinning the whole round? Or the team that lost due to being pinned, but never got mad? It's up to you.

I know I just laid a pile of "GP crap" in your lap. But honestly Chris, it's how I see it.

-Rion

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Not to say that you are wrong, but I think this view is minority. It has been debated how GP playing defense is and it seems most view it as a viable stratedgy. The fact that pinning for 4 seconds has been allowed and used in the past (2007) and the GDC again allows it, shows that they don't have a problem with it. While you may view it as wrong, I would suggest you understand that it will happen and you should plan accordingly.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

I believe that pinning is possibly the greatest form of respect twards a given robot.

Think about it, if your robot is getting pinned, Why is it getting pinned? It's not because your a average robot who can score an average amount of balls. It's because you are at a minimum the best robot on your alliance. You score at a excellent pace and are able to hang effectively near the end of the match. The opposing alliance clearly believes that if your robot is not defended upon. They will lose the match. You can ask great teams of years past if they got pinned and why they believe they got pinned. I think most of them will give you somewhat the same answer that i expressed above.

The truly great teams somehow someway get out of these situations and propel their team to victory.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Morals? Isn't it immoral (and not GP) not to try your best? And if your best chance at winning is to pin/release/re-pin/adinfinitum isn't that what you should do?

As long as you follow the rules ... pin for less than 5 seconds, give 6 feet clearence, give 3 seconds to free themselves, repeat ... then morals do not enter the equation. We're not talking about damaging another robot, or breaking any rules.

I suggest you take your "pile of GP crap" and re-evaluate how you are measuring others, because GP isn't a yardstick to measure others by, it is a goal for each individual to live by.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

I have personally never felt that any legal game strategy is "un-GP" as then it becomes a slippery slope. Next people will be telling me playing any defense is "un-GP", or hoarding balls is "un-GP", or doing anoything that involves your opponent is "un-GP". While one should not win at all costs (i.e., by breaking the rules, trying to work around them, lawyering), if there is a perfectly legal defensive strategy that has existed for years without being changed, I see no reason why it becomes "un-GP" to do it again just because doing it too much is illegal.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

I really like how pinning is addressed in the rules this year.

Pinning is a viable defensive strategy that I have been on both sides of in my FIRST career. It's an awesome weapon for a defensive robot, but the trade off is that it makes the match boring to watch, in addition to the fact that you're eliminating your opponent and yourself from the match effectively making it a 2 vs. 2. IMO, 5 Seconds is more than enough time to pin a machine and knock it off of it's game plan. In all reality, no one wants to see someone pin a good machine for an entire match. (Though I have been guilty of doing this before)

Also, think about it, there are way more effective defensive strategies than pinning.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

My reading of this rule seems to be that you are allowed to pin for the full 5 seconds until the ref signals you to release the robot and back off. The violation wouldn't occur unless the pinning robot did not back off when signaled. If the ref does not signal, a robot should be able to pin indefinitely since the rule states that the ref will signal that the pinned robot be released.

The rule does not seem to state that the ref signaling to release a pinned robot after 5 seconds constitutes a violation. It seems to state that the violation is not backing off when signaled.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

This year, it could be used on offense. If you get on 2-on-1 on offense, one robot can pin while the other is free to score. This could also be used to prevent a defensive robot from clearing balls into the center zone.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Somebody might have said that, but the rules do not. The <G39> states that "A ROBOT may not pin (inhibit the movement of another ROBOT that is in contact with a field element, border, or goal) for more than 5 seconds."
It says INHIBIT, not "keep a robot from moving anywhere." There is an important difference.

As for pinning against a bump, is the bump a field element? Yup.
Is the robot movement inhibited? If the robot can't get over it, then yup.
Then it follows that a robot can be pinned against the bump.


Wetzel

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

And if trying you best means finding a way to break a robot while staying the the rules?

Actually. The rules say you only have to break away at least 6 feet for more than 3 seconds if you pin for more than 5 seconds. with 4 seconds, as long as you allow them to move for at least a second it is perfectly legal to pin them again within 2.

I was not measuring him an any way. I was simple stating how I felt about this. If I seemed like I was attacking him, I do apologize. I did not mean to. I was stating the way I understood the rule, I must have come across differently, and I apologize for this. I did not intend to stir anything up.

I agree, defense is viable, and good. I my self will planning on have a way for our robot to use defense. But excessive pinning, I hope our drivers do not. Onces or twice a match, ok that is fine. Once or twice ever thirty seconds. I very that has pitiful. I would lose respect for myself if the only way I could win is by inhibiting another robots movement so often.

I do know that it will happen, and I plan on planing ahead. While you say this though; here is a story.

We were extremely grateful to this man. And if I ever had the chance; I would repay the favor.

I tell you this story just as a way of saying, it can happen, and will happen, but not always.

I do apologize Chris. I did not intend to attack you. That was how I viewed the rule. You asked how I came to my point, and I told you. My wording my not have been the best though. I do apologize if I have offended you or anyone else.

-Rion

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

1 : to prohibit from doing something

It is not the blocking robot that inhibits the other from going over the bump. It is their own design flaw that prevents it. Should they both get a penalty for "inhibiting"?

EDIT: I don't know why I'm arguing the point. I would have my driver avoid the chance of a penality by pushing the other robot onto the bump and leaving it stuck there.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

Formerly Famous - Don't worry, I'm not offended.

I don't like this. Then you could argue that a robot pinned against a wall would be able to be freed if it had swerve drive, and thus it should be pinned indefinitely.

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

So you are saying that if we hold you against the side rail it's not pinning because you didn't design your robot to fly?

(Note: this is the logical extreme of your thought pattern. Which is why pinning against any field object is pinning ... regardless of design)

Re: <G39> Pinning
 

This is a while back, and is also related to the post which the above was a reply to. If the robot in question is able to go back over the bump it's not pinning. You're not inhibiting overall, but simply movement in one direction. If this was considered pinning, by touching the tunnel you would be required to yield in whatever direction I wanted to go (this comparison only applies of the robot was able to go back over).