Official Q&A: VRC 2019-2020: Tower Takeover
328: <G15> Trapping Clarification
So with the release of NorCal's wall-bot, a few others and I brainstormed ways to negate its defensive effect. We came up with the idea of after autonomous (since wall-bots can't deploy till after autonomous) keeping one robot in the protected zone to secure access to that scoring zone. We thought that since we are in that corner the wall-bot can't deploy without trapping us but after reading the rules again we noticed trapping states:
A Robot is considered Trapped if an opposing Robot has restricted it into a small, confined area of the field, approximately the size of one foam tile of less and has not provided an avenue for escape. Trapping can be direct (pinning) or indirect (preventing a Robot from escaping the corner of the field).
So the approximately one foam tile or less means we can be trapped in the corner, our protected zone, by their bot based off the rule. However, in In The Zone's ref training it showed an example of trapping and the trapped robot was moving around between three tiles. Could you clarify if this would be trapping or not?
If it is ruled as trapping someone stated that the robot sitting in the protected zone violates <G14> which I believe is incorrect. The robot in the corner isn't forcing the wall-bot to come to the corner and trap it, it is strategically holding open the avenue so their partner can score in the area. Does this fall under G14?
Here are the videos I talked about for reference: NorCal's Wall-bot ITZ Ref Training, 1:10 is the example
There's two links here, formatting is being weird
So the approximately one foam tile or less means we can be trapped in the corner, our protected zone, by their bot based off the rule. However, in In The Zone's ref training it showed an example of trapping and the trapped robot was moving around between three tiles.
First, please remember that support materials from previous seasons do not apply to the current competition season, as rules, interpretations, or game-specific contexts may have changed.
Could you clarify if this would be trapping or not?
Indirect trapping is one of the more difficult calls for a Head Referee to interpret, and is largely dependent upon in-match context. The video clip that you referenced (if we were to assume that we are now interpreting it using Tower Takeover rules, not In the Zone rules) would be considered Trapping.
In this clip, the red Robot was very clearly intending to hold the blue Robot to a small, confined area, without providing any avenues for escape. The definition of Trapping does include the word "approximately" to imply that the Robot being Trapped may not always neatly line up into a specific foam tile without crossing any seams. Head Referees should not need to (and are not expected to) measure the precise area in which the Robot is being held to confirm if it is exactly 24" wide or not. Similarly, the blue Robot is clearly attempting to escape, which is another key thing that Head Referees will look for when determining if a given interaction is a Trap or not.
If it is ruled as trapping someone stated that the robot sitting in the protected zone violates <G14> which I believe is incorrect. The robot in the corner isn't forcing the wall-bot to come to the corner and trap it, it is strategically holding open the avenue so their partner can score in the area. Does this fall under G14?
It is impossible to issue a blanket ruling based on a snapshot description of a hypothetical match. The Head Referee would need to take into account the context of previous matches, the offensive Robot's intent for being in the corner, if they were attempting to escape, etc.