Pinning? Apparently I just don't seem to understand

[Andy A.]

Originally Posted by Brindza

Also, I am still amazed that people still believe that it is not pinning due to a design issue.

Movement was not inhibited.

All the other team did was limit where you could drive. You where not forced into doing something that was impossible or illegal, like driving through the field enclosure to escape. Your option was to drive up the ramp. Or to turn 90 degrees and drive around the other bot. But, you couldn't not because of the other robots actions but because of your robots capabilities.

Take this example. Remove the ramp and imagine 2 robots on the field. One robot, Red bot, can only drive forward due to a programming problem that just manifested it's self. Blue bot positions it's self so that it blocks Red bot from driving forward anymore. This takes place in the middle of the field on level surface.

Should a pin be called?

One last time. Movement was not inhibited. You could move. The video shows that. Movement in the direction you wanted to go in was inhibited. But as has been said many times, that is blocking, not pinning.

-Andy A.

[Jack Jones]

We should all agree to accept whichever way the head refs decide to call a play like that. I think we can also agree that it certainly falls into the "tough call" category.

In my opinion, it would be pinning. The robot was between a rock and a hard place, with the other bot the rock and the ramp the hard place. Going onto the ramp against your will, even if you can, is not a good place to be. A large percentage of those who do end up on their backside. And they are forced to go where the other bot can legally pin them. It's like putting a gun to someones head and claiming it wasn't your fault they jumped of that cliff.

Consider last year (rules don't extend to the next year, but common sense does) a team could have held a bot against a goal and claimed it wasn't pinning because the other bot could have gone into the goal and out the other side. I wouldn't buy that. And I don't buy that holding against the ramp isn't pinning - unless THEY say it's not.

[Justin Montois]

At FLR 1511 lost drive and it left 191 pinned for 25-30 seconds, 1511 drivers were desperatly trying to move there bot but to no avail. They were not peanalized.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

In my opinion, it would be pinning. The robot was between a rock and a hard place, with the other bot the rock and the ramp the hard place. Going onto the ramp against your will, even if you can, is not a good place to be. A large percentage of those who do end up on their backside. And they are forced to go where the other bot can legally pin them. It's like putting a gun to someones head and claiming it wasn't your fault they jumped of that cliff.

It is fully legal to push a robot onto the ramp from across the field and hold them there. They didn't want to go somewhere, but you pushed them where you wanted them. I didn't look at the video, and I'm not going to. I will say that if you read the rules, you must inhibit the movement of a robot while in contact with a field element or border. The ramp is a field element, so the question really only boils down to "was movement inhibited?"

Wetzel

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by 340x4xLife

At FLR 1511 lost drive and it left 191 pinned for 25-30 seconds, 1511 drivers were desperatly trying to move there bot but to no avail. They were not peanalized.

Yeah Jay got Ashley mad by saying the we and 271 were better defensive bot than their robot so she was out to make a point (Hell hath no fury like a woman dissed) so she take it out on us (Geez thanks Jay. Next time do that before one of your matches against them. ).
Truth be told 1511 got stuck in Auto mode and could not get out of it but they should have hit the e-stop so we could actually participate in that round.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

It is fully legal to push a robot onto the ramp from across the field and hold them there. They didn't want to go somewhere, but you pushed them where you wanted them. I didn't look at the video, and I'm not going to. I will say that if you read the rules, you must inhibit the movement of a robot while in contact with a field element or border. The ramp is a field element, so the question really only boils down to "was movement inhibited?"

Wetzel

And the key word there is "inhibit". which does not necessarily mean to stop dead still. It can also mean. "to discourage from free or spontaneous activity ." You can choose to remain ignorant of the particulars of this case, but that robot was most definitely discouraged from free and spontaneous movement.

Now we can claim that the rules are exact and perfect as written, or THEY can do the right thing.

In that regard, and had the outcome been slightly different to result in the pinned bot tipping off the ramp while trying to get away, THEY could look to G22. THEY could decide that, given the number of bots that can't and/or don't navigate the ramp, any strategy aimed at forcing them onto the ramp could be construed as a strategy of damage, destruction, or tipping over the hapless and helpless opponent.

I'd enjoy seeing the bullies get that interpretation laid on them!

[coldabert]

I am sorry that you misunderstood the point of my "bogus refs" comment so I have since removed it. I was in no way calling the refs at Pitts bogus and I'm not trying to flame other refs. I understand that refs easily have the hardest job in FIRST and I have no desire to complain about whether they made a bad call. I just would like to have a discussion with someone about how we can make the refs jobs easier and eliminate these kinds of problems. This is a discussion forum, I just want to discuss it so we can move on to other (small) problems in the FIRST program.

[Brindza]

I think that some people are getting the wrong idea about why i started this thread. and from reading my posts that i started it with, i can see why. I was a little frustrated when i started posting and it showed.
This thread was in no way meant to flame the refs at FIRST or Pittsburg. I just felt that we had a completely legitimate case for our robot. This thread was supposed to be one where we could, if possible, get the opinions of how it should have been called and how it will be called in future regionals from other teams and refs. Our team is about to go to the Chesapeake regional and if another team is going to be allowed to use this same tactic against us again I need to know so that we can have a plan for getting out of the situation.


Thanks for your input


Also, Please watch the video before you post your opinion.

[KenWittlief]

In the past the question of pinning has come up, and FIRST decreed that you can legally hold a bot against a field element for 9 seconds, back up a few inches for a second, then hold them for another 9 seconds, back up a few inches for a second, then hold them for another 9 seconds for the entire match if you want to

In order for pinning to occur you must hold the bot against the field element for 10 seconds. Since the agressor bot in this case was not applying any pressure against the blocked bot, and half the time was not even touching it - there was no pin.

I symphathize with the team that was stuck and could not move. It totally sucks when you cannot move your bot during a match, for any length of time.

Its all part of the game: you can build a bot that can man-handle everything on the field, or you can build a bot that is fast and agile. If you do the latter you must not let yourself get pushed into a field position where your bot cannot do what you want it to do.

The outcome of this is up to you. You can spend the rest of your life thinking your team got screwed, or you can accept that this is part of the game and build your bot differently next year to account for what experience has taught you.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

In the past the question of pinning has come up, and FIRST decreed that you can legally hold a bot against a field element for 9 seconds, back up a few inches for a second, then hold them for another 9 seconds, back up a few inches for a second, then hold them for another 9 seconds for the entire match if you want to

That is flat out wrong, at least according to all the head refs I've had the pleasure to work with. You must back off three feet, otherwise the count keeps ticking.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

That is flat out wrong, .

Originally Posted by =<G24>
Pinning - While on the carpeted field surface, a ROBOT cannot pin (inhibit the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border) for more than 10 seconds. This rule does not apply if either ROBOT is entirely on an ALLIANCE PLATFORM. If a ROBOT has been pinned for 10 seconds, the team with the pinning ROBOT will be told by a referee to release the pinned ROBOT and back away approximately 3 feet. Once the pinning ROBOT has backed off by 3 feet, it may again attempt to pin its opponent, and if successful, the 10 second count will start over. If a referee determines that this rule has been violated, a 5-point penalty flag will be assessed for each violation.

you only need to back away 3 feet if the robot has been pinned for 10 seconds. This goes back to the holding part of it. If your bot is pushed against a rail, and the other bot backs up a bit, then pushes you against the rail again you are not continuously pinned.

If this were not the case then everytime you pushed a bot against the rail you would have to back up three feet before you could push then again. Then you would be called for ramming!

[Brindza]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

That is flat out wrong, at least according to all the head refs I've had the pleasure to work with. You must back off three feet, otherwise the count keeps ticking.

Yes, that is how i interpereted the rule, however i asked the head ref at the Pittsburg regional if that was the case and she said that the count would start over once the robot backed off. I did not agree with this interperetation of the rule because you could pin a robot for the entire match that way and never give them the chance to escape or move in any way.

[KenWittlief]

The real engineering basis of the pinning rule stems from the fact that a stalled motor will draw more current than the breakers can handle. If your robot is held against a wall and your drivetrain is geared such that you cannot even spin your wheels in that position you are totally helpless.

If your robot has a few inches of wiggle room then your motors are not held stalled. You can rock your robot back and forth, using impluse and inertia to work yourself free.

This is why you cannot be 'pinned' in a corner. Your robot must be held against a barrier to be pinned.

[Jack Jones]

And there, my friends, is the crux of the matter. There is no precedent because enough precedent exists to support almost any position. Where is the leadership on this? Could it really be true that we want to see a pair of bots playing bumpity-bump for the entire match? Can a motor really recover with a few inches of relief? Can they really outlaw wedge bots, and then give cart-blanche to the bricks on wheels by giving them a wedge built into the field?

It is almost laughable, were it not so pathetic.

[KenWittlief]

If a team has a robot that cannot out-run, out-push or out-maneuver their opponent, then what will happen when that team is on the field with 5 other competitive machines?

Isn't that the idea of an engineering competition/game? Or do we want to go back to the year 2001 and play FIRST T-Ball again?