|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pinning being called consistently?
There is a related concept of "Blockade" where 2 or more robots box another robot into a confined area.
IMHO, if 1 robot boxes another robot into a confined area (can only move back a few feet either way), that is a PIN using the Blockade concept. Note: Pin is "to prevent or stop something from moving". "moving" has been liberally interpreted not as "unable to move", but more not able to move a material amount. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pinning being called consistently?
Pinning is a little harder to call 100% consistently, both in FRC and VEX. From I've seen, most refs will start the pin count at least a couple seconds late, which can be unfair to the teams being pinned. It's just one of those things where it's hard for the refs to watch everything at once, and start to call it exactly when it happens
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pinning being called consistently?
Quote:
https://youtu.be/UXlU0X1x9Tg?t=1m42s |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pinning being called consistently?
Quote:
The PIN rule does not require "intent", unlike other rules that require a "strategy", etc. |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pinning being called consistently?
Quote:
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. I think the key word is could. The rules leave it open to interpretation whether it should be called a pin or not. If the ref thinks that the position prevents the opponent from moving it should be a pin. I'm seeing alot of examples where it seems the refs are assuming even the slightest contact has trapped the robot against the batter, even when the robot isn't even trying to escape the batter. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|