Pin vs Blockade vs Traffic Jam

[rich2202]

If it is one-on-one, the only possible foul is a pin.

Once two bots on one alliance are involved, the blockade rule and pinning between the two bots, becomes an issue.

Has anyone seen a blockade call?

If one bot is blocking another bot from moving, advancing, or getting to a ball, should other bots stay far away to avoid the possibility of a blockade being called?

I remember seeing a situation where 3 bots were involved. one on offense, and two on defense. The ball was been the two defense bots and the wall. That made it virtually impossible for the offense to get to the ball. Is that a blockade situation?

Then there is the 4 bot traffic jam. One bot is trying to do something, and is defended by 2 bots, and another bot comes by to help. Then they all get stuck against the wall.

To keep the game moving, should two-on-one defense be discourage by more liberal calling of the Blockade foul?

[MrTechCenter]

We were called for a "blockade" when we were defending against two opposing alliance robots on our own when one of them finally split off but our alliance partner went to go defend against them on the other half of the zone. I don't see how it's a blockade when we were left to defend against the robot that had possession of the ball, who made no attempt to try and go around us. I think the definition of a blockade is way too vague for it to be called consistently, I never saw a other blockade call again.

As for the two defenders with the opponents' ball behind them, that would be considered trapping and therefore possession, we have been called on this as well, when we had a good foot between us and the ball, which was up against the side wall and there was a clear opening on either side, and the opposing alliance never touched that ball the entirety of the match, not because we were defending it, but because their focus was to prevent us from scoring, not scoring themselves. Again, trapping is a very vague definition.

Pinning has the most clear definition of all of these. If a robot is being held up against a field element, or is being pushed by opposing robots on opposite sides of their own robot, it's a pin. Otherwise, it's fair game.

[Lil' Lavery]

I've seen a handful of scenarios on webcasts that looked an awful lot like "blockading" to me (though they usually only lasted for 10 seconds or less), but I haven't seen a foul assessed for it yet. I can't recall the foul being called at any events I've attended since it was added to the rulebook a couple seasons ago.

[barn34]

Yeah, blockading is one of those fouls that is very difficult to call because you have to infer intent really. There have been several matches over the years where we've felt like the blockading penalty really should have been called, but it never has been (at least that I've seen). Honestly, it probably should be called more, but it'll probably take a high profile no-call instance where it gets a lot of people up in arms about it for anything to change at this point, I'm guessing.

[Shelbers2486]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qqE...79pG2OCwkujYsf

During this match the red alliance was charged with a blockading foul

[Bob Steele]

I don't see the foul... Can you give a time that is was called?

[Shelbers2486]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

I don't see the foul... Can you give a time that is was called?

I'm not really sure, I think it may have first been called after quite a bit of discussion after the match

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

I don't see the foul... Can you give a time that is was called?

Presumably at 2:04 if you watch the Head Ref.

I didn't realize double-teaming counted as blockading.

[Bob Steele]

I see what you are talking about now. It looks like he was going to call it but did not come back and put it in...

I, also, did not realize that double teaming was blockading.
The Blue bot could have backed up and gone around... there seemed to be plenty of room on the left side of the field to go through.

Of course it comes down to the Head Referee's opinion and that is what counts.

[ErvinI]

Pinning is fairly straightforward, as the rules are clearly underlined under G29.

Traffic jams don't really require to be defined, but the best way to describe them would be the same as the Lunacy scrums of 2009.

As for the above foul, it is an objectionable blockading call. I believe that when the rule was first created back in 2011 (at the very least, that's the oldest game that I definitely know had the rule), the rule was mainly used to prevent teams from ultimately cork-stopping the feeding stations, which was an essential objective to reach and could not be done without entering the feeding station safe zone.

Since then, blockading has become a very vague rule. There really wasn't any "essential objectives" in 2012 that could be feasibly blockaded. In 2013, blockading was supposed to be called when there was a robot in each side lane along their own pyramid, since there was little space along the sides for two robots to fit if they had certain dimensions. However, I know that at Waterloo there was some debate as to what "blockading" was, since according to the ref, a tall robot could be blockaded using only two robots, while <30" robots only got blockaded with three robots since a new lane opened up for them to use under the pyramid.

This season, the only objectives that can be stopped through multiple robots are trapping the ball and blocking both low goals at the same time. Since trapping is called under G12, the only true blockade spots are the low goals. I guess making a conga line with all your robots also can called as a blockade since it stops a team from reaching one end of the field, but that will require quite a bit of coordination.

I wish that blockading is actually more clearly defined next year.

[Dan.Tyler]

Fwiw... We all thought there were going to be high speed ramming penalties after that match, not blockading.

They did, indeed, discuss it for almost two minutes after the match.

I really felt that they handed us that match on the blockading penalty unfairly, as it was just aggressive defense in my book.

Looking at the replay though... The moment they moved the dead blue bot over towards the camera, there wasn't sufficient room to continue forward, presumably stopping 2486 from scoring a game winning goal. So, with it being presumably consequential, it is easier to call the penalty from an on the fence position.

[IronicDeadBird]

Wow, just wow QM 72 is such an aggressive match. In a recent Q&A it was stated that pushing is not repeated ramming. So in this situation I see a lot of "defensive" driving that looks overly aggressive.

[EricH]

The way it was/wasn't called at L.A. was essentially if two robots were going across the field to block all opposing traffic. Didn't happen (though one match came close), so no call was ever made. I've personally not seen one since that rule was put into place.


Two robots blocking access to an opposing ball against the wall results in a G12 (trapping). I've called that one a time or two. Generally, if the offense CAN get through without too much trouble, it won't be called; if the offense CANNOT get through (without one or more robots disappearing) it will be called.