The Chokehold Strategy of 2016?

[Mr. Lim]

All I can say right now is that it is challenging to pull off without drawing penalties, but still definitely possible.

It's not a chokehold, per se, because if your opponents know how to react to it, they can still get boulders - albeit much slower.

You need to make sure your team playing defence knows exactly what is allowed and what isn't, which is difficult to convey during Saturday lunch, without ever having practiced it.

You also need to invest the time in explaining to the refs what you are doing so they are going to call it as expected. Some things can be subject to interpretation.

Are you allowed to position yourself at the end of the opponent's SP and let opposing boulders bounce off you so they stay in the SP? You definitely should.

Should you be able to play defence in the neutral zone to prevent your opponents from getting balls that are outside the SP? Yes, of course, but if there are balls near the opening of the SP that you are defending, things get murky.

I also agree that you should be able to box opponents in to their own SP based on how the rules are currently written.

You need to tell the refs exactly what you expect to happen as well... and what penalties should be called in what circumstances.

Our attempt in SF2-1 at GTRE was not really well executed, but enough to prove the concept and learn how to improve on it. We held the opponent to 6 boulders scored, but there are a lot of penalty calls, so it's still very debatable. It wasn't a very close match when you see all the penalties.

I think it will catch on more as the weeks go by, however. Not too many will try due to the penalty potential, but those who can successfully do it will be able to pull some upsets. It might be interesting to see 2nd picks at Champs focused on teams who can play defense in this way effectively.

[gp2013]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

All I can say right now is that it is challenging to pull off without drawing penalties, but still definitely possible.

It's not a chokehold, per se, because if your opponents know how to react to it, they can still get boulders - albeit much slower.

You need to make sure your team playing defence knows exactly what is allowed and what isn't, which is difficult to convey during Saturday lunch, without ever having practiced it.

You also need to invest the time in explaining to the refs what you are doing so they are going to call it as expected. Some things can be subject to interpretation.

Are you allowed to position yourself at the end of the opponent's SP and let opposing boulders bounce off you so they stay in the SP? You definitely should.

Should you be able to play defence in the neutral zone to prevent your opponents from getting balls that are outside the SP? Yes, of course, but if there are balls near the opening of the SP that you are defending, things get murky.

I also agree that you should be able to box opponents in to their own SP based on how the rules are currently written.

You need to tell the refs exactly what you expect to happen as well... and what penalties should be called in what circumstances.

Our attempt in SF2-1 at GTRE was not really well executed, but enough to prove the concept and learn how to improve on it. We held the opponent to 6 boulders scored, but there are a lot of penalty calls, so it's still very debatable. It wasn't a very close match when you see all the penalties.

I think it will catch on more as the weeks go by, however. Not too many will try due to the penalty potential, but those who can successfully do it will be able to pull some upsets. It might be interesting to see 2nd picks at Champs focused on teams who can play defense in this way effectively.

Fair enough. I think all three alliance teams would need a significant amount of FRC experience to get those things to align (esp. convincing the referees) but there are many teams out there with that experience and at world's we will see them. I certainly would consider using it (or a variation of it) again (though I am waiting for the GTRE videos to go up online to review it) especially in a situation where we are facing a much stronger alliance. I do agree that we will see this defence run again as the season progresses.

[Ozuru]

How doesn't this violate G11?

G11: Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of
FIRST Robotics Competition and not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in
an assignment of a penalty to the targeted ALLIANCE.

Violation: FOUL. If egregious or repeated, YELLOW CARD

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by Ozuru

How doesn't this violate G11?

Because it doesn't force anyone to take any penalties.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

G43 has nothing to do with preventing robots from traversing their own defense. It only says you can't contact the opposing robot in your own Outerworks. But you can still traverse them yourself (Alliance 4's defense robot drove through their Sally Port during the last 30 seconds of the match when they were facing Alliance 1 at Lakeview and received no penalties).

Therefore, no chokehold.

[Edxu]

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

G43 has nothing to do with preventing robots from traversing their own defense. It only says you can't contact the opposing robot in your own Outerworks. But you can still traverse them yourself (Alliance 4's defense robot drove through their Sally Port during the last 30 seconds of the match when they were facing Alliance 1 at Lakeview and received no penalties).

Therefore, no chokehold.

However, if they touch you while YOU'RE in their defense, they get a penalty. They are penalized for violating rule G43, as you are parked in the defense that they try to cross. G43 does not cover a robot stopping an opponent from trying to cross their own defenses.