Due to the hard cap in points, in higher levels of play if there are good enough bots to reach the theoretical hard cap preventing the opponent would not be a bad idea
You’re actually not allowed to go to the opponent’s side of the field during the sandstorm (8.2.1)
To get out of a pinning call at the rocket, the defending robot has to has to at least cross the mid-field lines or drive blindly around the cargo ship.
You are parked in front of the rocket playing D. I run into you and try to push you out of the way.
Who is pinning who?
Are you thinking the team on the defensive side of the field will always get the penalty?
Can we make this a PSA for refs?
If the pinned robot so much as twitches, the pin count resets.
G18. There’s a 5-count on pins. ROBOTS may not pin an opponent’s ROBOT for more than five (5) seconds. A ROBOT will be considered pinned until the ROBOTS have separated by at least six (6) feet. The pinning ROBOT(s) must then wait for at least three (3) seconds before attempting to pin the same ROBOT again. Pinning is transitive through other objects. If the pinned ROBOT chases the pinning ROBOT upon retreat, the pinning ROBOT will not be penalized, and the pin will be considered complete.
Sounds like a lot more than a twitch to me.
I agree with you completely in principle, but it really depends on how the refs call it. At Palmetto, I know that the refs did not enforce the 6 foot part of the rule. Nor the 3 second part. (at least not consistently)
While teams may not have originally designed there robots around purely defending, it definetly was a catalyst imo in some of the more nail-biting matches at Del Mar coming to wins by only a point or two margins. Chalk it up to how small point values are this year but teams like 399, 2984, and 5199 definitely dealt a fair amount of “damage” and slowing of cycle times for many of the teams and alliances they came in contact with and added some variety to typical game strategy.
You completely missed my point. I have bolded, italicized, and emoted it for even better emphasis:
I guess the question is what and when is a “completed” pin. Is if after 6ft? Is it after 6ft and 3 seconds? If the pinned bot “chases” after the pin, does the pinning bot still have to wait 3 seconds.
Only your head Referee knows for sure.
I think you’re both missing what’s being said here. @JesseK is referring to what pinning a robot counts as, but @GeeTwo is referring to the consequence of pinning a robot; correct me if i’m wrong.
My question is, does that mean that if you were pinning a robot and backed off, say, an inch, and the pinned robot was able to back up slightly, would that count as no longer pinning, even if the “pinned” robot couldn’t go further than an inch? If this was the case, could you infinitely pin a robot as long as you gave them space to wiggle around every few seconds, given that the second the pinned robot moved, the pin count would reset?
If the pinned robot does not move an inch, it is still a pin.
If the pinned robot moves that inch, it is considered “chasing” and the pin resets.
There have been a few relevant Q&A’s over the years that seem consistent with how I’ve seen it called.
For context, Jesse was one of the awesome refs at our week 1 event. He knows his stuff. He speaks with the knowledge and experience of a veteran zebra.
If you are in Michigan or going against a Michigan team… You don’t. LOL
To my mind, (not necessarily aligned with the FIRST pinning mind), “chasing” means proceeding directly towards something (simplistic model), or (Groetzky model) towards where something is expected to be. Is there no accounting for how far off in angle motion occurs as to whether it counts as “chasing”? Clearly, if the angle is 90 degrees or greater, you are not even vaguely approaching the “pinning” robot. To my mind, any angle greater than about 30 degrees from the line connecting the two robots should not be considered “chasing”, but rather an attempted “escape”, no matter how many inches or feet of motion happens. If the perverse logic described above is how the refs interpret it, PLEASE PUT THIS IN THE FIRST MANUAL!
Teams should have a good feeling for how the rules will be refereed, no matter what the relationship is between the refereeing and the verbiage of the rules.
The actual refereeing matches the expectations from the rules, IMO.
I tried to ask in the QandA about the scenario where a defensive bot is parked in front of the cargo ship and a offensive bot makes contact starting a Pin count. Watching matches I seen this many times and wondered who pinned who? If it truelly is the defensive bot that is “pinned” then they should stand still and draw penalties until the Offensive bot backs the full 6 feet away. If it is the Defensive bot that is incurring the penalty then the offensive bot should park there and make them get 6 feet out of the way.
Here is the QandA: https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/qa/391 I got the cookie cutter “We cannot comment absolutely on hypothetical scenarios…” So ask your lead ref how they plan to enforce this rule and play into the game rules of your event. There is also the possibility that the yellow shirt and black/white shirts rule on this differently keeping this one consistent is going to be hard and VERY Tough to counter argue if it doesn’t go your way so it maybe best to avoid the pin rule and power through using brute force using low gear and push them sideways out of your way.
Is this something you made up or is it more widely used?