<G39> Pinning

[thefro526]

I really like how pinning is addressed in the rules this year.

Pinning is a viable defensive strategy that I have been on both sides of in my FIRST career. It's an awesome weapon for a defensive robot, but the trade off is that it makes the match boring to watch, in addition to the fact that you're eliminating your opponent and yourself from the match effectively making it a 2 vs. 2. IMO, 5 Seconds is more than enough time to pin a machine and knock it off of it's game plan. In all reality, no one wants to see someone pin a good machine for an entire match. (Though I have been guilty of doing this before)

Also, think about it, there are way more effective defensive strategies than pinning.

[theun4gven]

My reading of this rule seems to be that you are allowed to pin for the full 5 seconds until the ref signals you to release the robot and back off. The violation wouldn't occur unless the pinning robot did not back off when signaled. If the ref does not signal, a robot should be able to pin indefinitely since the rule states that the ref will signal that the pinned robot be released.

The rule does not seem to state that the ref signaling to release a pinned robot after 5 seconds constitutes a violation. It seems to state that the violation is not backing off when signaled.

[Ryan Simpson]

Originally Posted by thefro526

Also, think about it, there are way more effective defensive strategies than pinning.

This year, it could be used on offense. If you get on 2-on-1 on offense, one robot can pin while the other is free to score. This could also be used to prevent a defensive robot from clearing balls into the center zone.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by draconar

Pinning against the bumps (ramps, whatever) is probably going to depend on the referees' discretion. If the pinned robot has a tank drivetrain and the treads are parallel to the ramp and it can't move, then it's probably pinning. If the treads can go up the ramp but the team just wants to go the other direction, it wouldn't be.
As somebody said above, pinning only happens when a robot can't move anywhere. Otherwise it's just blocking.

Somebody might have said that, but the rules do not. The <G39> states that "A ROBOT may not pin (inhibit the movement of another ROBOT that is in contact with a field element, border, or goal) for more than 5 seconds."
It says INHIBIT, not "keep a robot from moving anywhere." There is an important difference.

As for pinning against a bump, is the bump a field element? Yup.
Is the robot movement inhibited? If the robot can't get over it, then yup.
Then it follows that a robot can be pinned against the bump.


Wetzel

[Rion Atkinson]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Morals? Isn't it immoral (and not GP) not to try your best? And if your best chance at winning is to pin/release/re-pin/adinfinitum isn't that what you should do?

As long as you follow the rules ... pin for less than 5 seconds, give 6 feet clearence, give 3 seconds to free themselves, repeat ... then morals do not enter the equation. We're not talking about damaging another robot, or breaking any rules.

I suggest you take your "pile of GP crap" and re-evaluate how you are measuring others, because GP isn't a yardstick to measure others by, it is a goal for each individual to live by.

And if trying you best means finding a way to break a robot while staying the the rules?

Actually. The rules say you only have to break away at least 6 feet for more than 3 seconds if you pin for more than 5 seconds. with 4 seconds, as long as you allow them to move for at least a second it is perfectly legal to pin them again within 2.

I was not measuring him an any way. I was simple stating how I felt about this. If I seemed like I was attacking him, I do apologize. I did not mean to. I was stating the way I understood the rule, I must have come across differently, and I apologize for this. I did not intend to stir anything up.

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Not to say that you are wrong, but I think this view is minority. It has been debated how GP playing defense is and it seems most view it as a viable strategy. The fact that pinning for 4 seconds has been allowed and used in the past (2007) and the GDC again allows it, shows that they don't have a problem with it. While you may view it as wrong, I would suggest you understand that it will happen and you should plan accordingly.

I agree, defense is viable, and good. I my self will planning on have a way for our robot to use defense. But excessive pinning, I hope our drivers do not. Onces or twice a match, ok that is fine. Once or twice ever thirty seconds. I very that has pitiful. I would lose respect for myself if the only way I could win is by inhibiting another robots movement so often.

I do know that it will happen, and I plan on planing ahead. While you say this though; here is a story.

LUNACY

My team had just finished setting the robot up on the field, they were standing at the starting line. The match starts! All the robots start moving completely autonomously. Out robot in the middle takes a very powerful hit from the right just as we start moving. Our trailer pin pops out!. The refs have now disabled our robot, and our trailer is sitting right in front of the other alliances fuel depot! The student sitting there now has a choice. He can fill up our trailer with all his moon rocks. OR, he can wait for another place to score and be kind to the helpless trailer. What did he do? He put three rocks into our helpless trailer. Then he decided to save the rest.

We were extremely grateful to this man. And if I ever had the chance; I would repay the favor.

I tell you this story just as a way of saying, it can happen, and will happen, but not always.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I have personally never felt that any legal game strategy is "un-GP" as then it becomes a slippery slope. Next people will be telling me playing any defense is "un-GP", or hoarding balls is "un-GP", or doing anoything that involves your opponent is "un-GP". While one should not win at all costs (i.e., by breaking the rules, trying to work around them, lawyering), if there is a perfectly legal defensive strategy that has existed for years without being changed, I see no reason why it becomes "un-GP" to do it again just because doing it too much is illegal.

I do apologize Chris. I did not intend to attack you. That was how I viewed the rule. You asked how I came to my point, and I told you. My wording my not have been the best though. I do apologize if I have offended you or anyone else.

-Rion

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

Somebody might have said that, but the rules do not. The <G39> states that "A ROBOT may not pin (inhibit the movement of another ROBOT that is in contact with a field element, border, or goal) for more than 5 seconds."
It says INHIBIT, not "keep a robot from moving anywhere." There is an important difference.

As for pinning against a bump, is the bump a field element? Yup.
Is the robot movement inhibited? If the robot can't get over it, then yup.
Then it follows that a robot can be pinned against the bump.


Wetzel

1 : to prohibit from doing something

It is not the blocking robot that inhibits the other from going over the bump. It is their own design flaw that prevents it. Should they both get a penalty for "inhibiting"?

EDIT: I don't know why I'm arguing the point. I would have my driver avoid the chance of a penality by pushing the other robot onto the bump and leaving it stuck there.

[Chris is me]

Formerly Famous - Don't worry, I'm not offended.

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

1 : to prohibit from doing something

It is not the blocking robot that inhibits the other from going over the bump. It is their own design flaw that prevents it. Should they both get a penalty for "inhibiting"?

I don't like this. Then you could argue that a robot pinned against a wall would be able to be freed if it had swerve drive, and thus it should be pinned indefinitely.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

1 : to prohibit from doing something

It is not the blocking robot that inhibits the other from going over the bump. It is their own design flaw that prevents it. Should they both get a penalty for "inhibiting"?

So you are saying that if we hold you against the side rail it's not pinning because you didn't design your robot to fly?

(Note: this is the logical extreme of your thought pattern. Which is why pinning against any field object is pinning ... regardless of design)

[kirtar]

Originally Posted by EricH

Pinning is defined as inhibiting the movement of another robot that is in contact with a field element, border, or goal. The bumps are a field element. Yes, there is an avenue of escape. No, the rules don't say, "except for against the bumps". Therefore, the robot is pinned, because it is in contact with a field element.

Now, you could easily argue the other way. So, here's a question for someone who can post on Q&A to post when it opens: "Under <G39>, pinning is defined as inhibiting the movement of another robot that is in contact with a field element, border, or goal. If a robot is trapped against a BUMP by another robot, it has an escape route (over the BUMP). Is this still pinning?"

This is a while back, and is also related to the post which the above was a reply to. If the robot in question is able to go back over the bump it's not pinning. You're not inhibiting overall, but simply movement in one direction. If this was considered pinning, by touching the tunnel you would be required to yield in whatever direction I wanted to go (this comparison only applies of the robot was able to go back over).