Paul,
I had the same view you did, but myself and many others were surprised to learn at the SVR this weekend that it was indeed considered "legal" by the refs to pin a scoring robot against the rack the entire match. The only option for the offensive robot being pinned was to drop the ringer - otherwise the defensive bot can pin them against the rack as long as they want. This rule defined the SVR and pretty much took the scoring teams like 100, 668, 254 and others out of the matches....as 668 pointed out, the simple strategy against any alliance with one really strong scoring robot was to double or triple team them and pin them as long as they could - as long as the pinning alliance had a ramp bot, they basically couldn't lose.
Hopefully the Q & A will clarify it for everyone one way or another, but the refs at SVR seemed fairly confident that they were instructed to call it as they did. If they misunderstood the rule or their instructions, then they called it incorrectly throughout the event, which would be very unfortunate. If they enforced it correctly, then whether people think it's right or wrong, or whether we disagree or agree with that type of defensive strategy really doesn't matter. If, as the refs explained it to the teams this weekend, it is in the rules and that's how they've been told to call it - then the ramp/defense bots are just doing what is a winning strategy given the rules and how refs are told to interpret them. If that is the case, then yes, get out the zip ties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli
Woah! How is the rule ambiguous? It is clear that the rule is intended to allow an OFFENSIVE robot trying to score a ringer to pin a DEFENSIVE robot against the rack while trying to score. So you are saying that a ringer robot trying to score can be pinned against the rack for an indefinite period of time? If this is true, then I am zip tying my arm down and pinning every single offensive robot against the rack at Champs.
C'mon guys, the rule is clear:
It says the ROBOT attempting the HANG is immune to the violation, not the ROBOT defending the hang is immune. Whoever interpreted it any other way is just plain wrong.
I am entering a Q&A tonight.
|