You are presenting this as though it is indisputable that you were pinned. However, that's not so indisputable.
G22 reads:
Quote:
ROBOTS may not pin an opponent’s ROBOT for more than five (5) seconds. A ROBOT will be
considered pinned until the ROBOTS have separated by at least six (6) feet. The pinning ROBOT(s)
must then wait for at least three (3) seconds before attempting to pin the same ROBOT again.
Pinning is transitory through other objects. If the pinned ROBOT chases the pinning ROBOT upon
retreat, the pinning ROBOT will not be penalized, and the pin will be considered complete.
|
And yes, the blue box reads, in part:
Quote:
As a result, contact is not required for pinning to occur. 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.
|
But one could argue you had a way out. It was through the opponent's secret passage. And, it is a legal route for you to take at the moment the pin occurs.
Further, your opponent retreats and you chase the robot, hence ending the pin. True, it wasn't for a 6 foot distance, but the opponent backed away, and you pursued. At that point you were not against an object and hence not pinned.
You may not agree with the referee's decision, but that referee is looking right at the interaction and determined there was no pin. Perhaps what I said above is what was going through that referee's mind.
And, seeing that your dispute involves a referee's judgement, what would be your criteria for the resolution? If the ref isn't counting, then the team doesn't think they are pinning, and they don't move. Would it be equally unfair to that opponent team who believed they were within the rules to be suddenly told they have a penalty, or worse a card, when they had no opportunity to correct their behavior?