The Q&A has closed for the current season.

Official Q&A: VEXU 2019-2020: Tower Takeover Usage Guidelines

<SG3> Defense Strategy in Protection Zone


UWAT
4 months ago

Hi, First, I want to reference some previous rulings back in Nothing But Net Protection Zone. The climbing/loading zone in Nothing But Net received similar protection to Inner/Outer protection Zone this year. I know Q&A from previous rulings do not carry over but they may affect any rulings that will be made for this season. I am also referencing previous rulings in case any other teams want to check on any of the decisions made in the past.

www.vexforum.com/t/answered-question-regarding-sg11/30136 It was ruled here that it is allowed to block opponents from entering the protection zone, and the opponent’s robot is allowed to push the robots in an attempt to enter the zone.

www.vexforum.com/t/answered-legal-defense-of-elevation/31912 It was ruled here that being pushed into the protection zone does not result in a violation if the robot being pushed in leave the zone immediately.

www.vexforum.com/t/answered-forced-into-climbing-zone/33118 However, the decision was overturned here, robot being pushed into the zone DOES cause a violation here, even if the robot being pushed leaves the zone immediately.

Now comes to this year’s game.

<SG3> Stay away from your opponent’s protected areas. Robots may not intentionally or accidentally, directly or indirectly, perform the following actions:

A> Contact an opponent Robot which is fully contained within their Protected Zone.

B> Contact any Scored Cubes in either of opposing Alliance’s Goal Zones.

D> Contact either of the opposing Alliance’s Goal Zones or Barriers.

Minor violations of points A, B, C, or D that do not affect the Match will result in a warning. Match Affecting offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the Head Referee’s discretion.

E> Contact an opposing Alliance’s Inner Protected Zone

F> F Cause Scored Cubes within the opponent’s Protected Zone to no longer meet the definition of Scored (i.e. “knock over their stack”). Any violation of points E, F, or G will result in a Disqualification, whether the interaction was Match Affecting or not.

<G12> a. VEX Robotics Competition Tower Takeover is intended to be an offensive game. Teams that partake in solely defensive or destructive strategies will not have the protections implied by <G12> (see <G13>). However, defensive play which does not involve destructive or illegal strategies is still within the spirit of this rule. d. Game elements in possession of a Robot are an extension of that Robot. Therefore, Entanglement (e.g., grasping, hooking, attaching) with Cubes that are in the possession of an opposing Robot is a violation of this rule.

<G14> You can’t force an opponent into a penalty. Intentional strategies that cause an opponent to violate a rule are not permitted, and will not result in an infraction on the opposing Alliance. Minor violations of this rule that do not affect the Match will result in a warning. Match Affecting offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the Head Referee’s discretion.

Are robots allowed to park in the outer protection zone with the intention to block opponent robot from entering the inner protection zone?(Assume Case A is not met)

Will robots be in violation of Case D, E if the robots playing defense are being pushed into the inner protection zone/ by the opponents if they leave immediately upon being pushed into the inner zone?

Will robots be in violation of Case D if the robots playing defense are being pushed to contact the barrier/goal zone in the unprotected zone if they leave immediately upon being pushed into the barrier/goal zone?

Will robots be in violation of Case B,F if there are scored cubes in the goal zone, and robots playing defense are being pushed into the inner protection zone and touched/ knocked over a stack if they leave immediately upon being pushed into the inner zone?

Will the two robots playing defense in this scenario receive protection from G12? My interpretation is that since they are partaking in defensive strategy, they will not receive protection for trapping, is this interpretation correct?

img

Answered by Game Design Committee

Are robots allowed to park in the outer protection zone with the intention to block opponent robot from entering the inner protection zone?(Assume Case A is not met)

There are no rules prohibiting this, thus it is legal.

Will robots be in violation of Case D, E if the robots playing defense are being pushed into the inner protection zone/ by the opponents if they leave immediately upon being pushed into the inner zone?

Will robots be in violation of Case D if the robots playing defense are being pushed to contact the barrier/goal zone in the unprotected zone if they leave immediately upon being pushed into the barrier/goal zone?

Will robots be in violation of Case B,F if there are scored cubes in the goal zone, and robots playing defense are being pushed into the inner protection zone and touched/ knocked over a stack if they leave immediately upon being pushed into the inner zone?

SG3 does not supersede G14. Therefore, it will be at the Head Referee's discretion whether this contact was solely the result of being pushed by their opponents. If this is the case, then it would not be considered a violation, provided that the defensive Robot makes immediate and visible attempts to leave the Inner Protected Zone.

That being said, it is impossible to provide a blanket answer that would cover all possible hypothetical interactions. G13, which states that offensive Robots receive the "benefit of the doubt", may be used liberally in these judgment calls. Therefore, in contrast with the above, a Head Referee may make the judgment call that G14 is not applicable, and an SG3 violation would result. Some scenarios that could drive this judgment call are as follows (although this is not a comprehensive list):

  • A defensive Robot "baiting" an offensive Robot into causing contact
  • A defensive Robot driving in a manner that causes accidental contact ("A Team is responsible for the actions of its Robot at all times" per G12)
  • A defensive Robot not making an immediate and visible attempt to exit the Inner Protected Zone upon entry

Teams attempting a defensive strategy such as the one included in your attached image should be very cognizant of this possibility, and the risk they are taking in doing so.

Will the two robots playing defense in this scenario receive protection from G12? My interpretation is that since they are partaking in defensive strategy, they will not receive protection for trapping, is this interpretation correct?

We are not entirely sure what you mean by "protection for trapping". To be clear - if you are asking about an offensive Robot attempting to utilize their Goal Zone, if they will receive a Trapping count for confining the defensive Robots, then your interpretation is correct. Per G13, the offensive Robot should receive the "benefit of the doubt" and not receive a Trapping violation.