[Travis Hoffman]

I have one thought - pinning against the goal is a commonplace occurrence this season. If the pinned robot is small enough to fit entirely inside the goal and ends up there as a result of said pin, I would think the defender should not be held responsible for that result, as that is a natural risk of pursuing a smaller, more mobile design.

The act in the video appears more aggressive than simply pushing 1501 into the goal after they score a ball, but I don't believe what they did was illegal. Unfortunately, the video gets jittery right when the "stuffing" occurs, making it hard to see exactly how hard they were pushed into the goal. A gentle escort would be far more appropriate than a full force slam dunk.

Relating to the tipping and subsequent extra nudge that happened earlier in the match, I actually feel the initial tipping was incidental (look at the angle Rosie contacted 1501 - it wasn't head-on contact). I would not qualify that as a penalizable offense. The subsequent contact could be flagged, but...

...when does the act of "completing the righting operation" (per <G32>) end? When at least one robot drive wheel returns to contacting the ground? If so, then Rosie violated the 10-second protection rule. If self-righting is defined as extending the self-righting mechanism, then Rosie contacted 1501 again after 1501 deployed their mechanism and started to fall back to normal orientation. I imagine the GDC prefers the former definition, but that's just an assumption. Someone might want to ask for further clarification.

I second the playing possum strategy as a smart ploy to get heavy defenders off your back...even if you aren't tipped. Add histrionics behind the controls to express puzzlement and anger over a faux communication issue, and see if you can dupe your assailants into leaving or at least giving you more room - can you tell I've been watching "Life" on the Discovery Channel of late? :-)