Rule 12.2.1 (Entanglement)

We are building a cluster bot and want to use nets and cables to stop spinners. Because we are using 3 robots we will not stop combat completely. Is it allowed?

the short answer is that i wouldnt even touch entanglent weapons with a barge pole, in other words stay away from em!

Are the FRA against these types of weapons? Ive never really bothered to check

Entanglement weapons were banned several years ago and I dont see this changing.

Be careful here... entanglement weapons were assumed to be banned in Robot Wars for quite some time while never being written in the rules.
The current Black Top rules (which Im using as the FRA rules do not appear to be available online at the moment) seem to prohibit weapons which immobilise both your opponent and yourself, which would mean nets and cables fixed to your robot at some point. If your nets and cables detach, then you may have found a way around the rules - but be aware of the rule that projectiles must be tethered.

Jim, I think you will find FRA rule 12.2.1 forbids any type of entanglment weapon.

Peter, Dat is en goed idee, maar verbieden is. (sorry, mijn Nederlands is niet te goed!!)

Geoff.

Show off! ;o)

If I read the rules, it is not banned at all.

courier new>Rule 12 Forbidden Weapons and Materials. The following weapons and materials are forbidden for use:....

and
courier new>Rule 12.2.1 Entanglement devices. Such as nets,....

So it seems there are forbidden, but if you read

courier new>Rule 12.2 Weapons or defenses, which tend to stop combat completely, of both (or more) robots. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
and then follows rule 12.2.1

My conclusion is, weapons which stops combat completely are forbidden for example nets. This is good rule. No combat, no fun.

But we have a cluster bot so only one of our bots is entangled. The other two can still walk around and attack.

Am I reading the rules correct or is it just me (from Holland as Geoff noticed :))
What is your opinion?

Peter

i think that that rule would mean combat for both parties involved but im not sure.

walk around and attack? First cluster walker?

Speaking as chief judge,

If a robot entangles another robot with a net etc. Unless the robot deploying the net can retrieve it intact, then I would take the net wrapped around another robot as damage to the entangler. This robot would also have to forfiet the fight as it would also constitute pinning for more than 30 seconds: so the entangler looses on 2 counts.

Hi chief judge,

I think you are the right person to speak to. The rules are clear for a 1 on 1 fight.

But if the entangler is part of a CLUSTER bot and the other bots are still moving, do you still lose the game if you can not un-entangle?

Peter

Hes got a point, cause In his case, 100% of your opponent is immobilised, and only 33% of your own robot...

No, because if you do it on purpose then the entangler can be counted as an untethered projectile, thus forbidden.

Peter, the rules may not be entirely clear on all the aspects concerning cluster robots but the following points are important:
- no entangling devices - your part of the cluster that entangles the opponent can be seen as an entangling device
- no untethered projectiles - your part of the cluster that entangles the opponent can be seen as an untethered projectile
- no grappling - after a certain time (60 seconds ?) you must let your opponent go, failure in doing so will result in you losing the fight by default

The point is that all the parts of your cluster must be on the offensive, with the intent to attack, not with the intent to just hang on. By the way:hanging on does not generate more points for attack... it is a single action and the jury might consider the hanging part of the cluster immobilised. Do you really wish to imperil a third of your chances like that ???
Also, the aim is to immobilise your opponent by actively damaging it or scoring points by hitting it. What you intend to do is -in my humble opinion- bordering on the unsportive.

As a slight aside (sorry, Kane) I guess the same could be argued for caltrops (robotic or otherwise). Ive pondered about having very small and simple robots drive under a robot with low ground clearance (as most are these days) and spring up into a caltrop configuration, lifting the opposition off the ground. Actually being able to drive with it there is another matter.

Its not strictly entanglement (the robot is lifted, not entangled). It would probably contravene the holding rule, though.

I just like the idea of defeating Typhoon with lots and lots of antweights. :-)

--
Fluppet

I really fail to see why Peter would want to use nets or whatever entanglment weapon anyway. I believe you and your team are building a 3 cluster walker, meaning 3 66kg(!) robots. You dont need to resort to these kind of tactics.

--
Leo

Babeth: I am sorry if you think what we want to do is unsportive. We dont try to do that, just get the rules clear. If Arthure says :no ropes we dont use ropes. Easy.
But your reasoning is not correct.
You say: - no entangling devices. That is not correct. The rules say: No Weapons or defenses, which tend to stop combat completely. For a cluster bot that is something different.

You say: - no untethered projectiles. I dont think may people see a robot (part of a cluster bot) as a projectile (but I could be wrong).

You say: - no grappling, but that is not in the rules. I know, if you hold an other robot for more than 30 seconds, you lose, but this not what we want to do.

You say:The point is that all the parts of your cluster must be on the offensive. I say why. If you have 3 bots, why not use one for defence? You are using shields on your bot for defence dont you?

Leo: We dont want to entangle other robots. What I try to make is a defence agains those spinners. They are so powerfull.
We dont want to use nets, but things like a few meters of rope to jam the spinning flywheels. This should be our secret wapon so dont tell them :) Problem is, is it allowed?

Peter

Peter, I was only pointing out to you what possible judges would make of it. I would, so that means others can too. Your reasoning about the rules is faulty.
See: If you look at the rules you know that 12.2.1 nicely covers everything... even a rope, cable or net. Also take a look at 12.6, any cable you would want to use will be too short to be effective anyway and you will need that robot to be able to dis-entangle itself from the other without cutting the cable (because that would make it an untethered projectile) !!!
The no grappling is implied in the rules about entanglement devices, but it is also a long-standing tradition (and it was a rule enforced by Mentorn !) that you should not hold your opponent pinned down for longer than a minute.
So, with this point of view, the fact that you would sacrifice one of your 3 robots in the cluster to actively entangle the opponent seems rather odd. The nice thing about clusters is that one might be able to hold the opponent for a short time long enough for the other to make a solid attack, but would also force the opponent to choose a target and become one at the same time.
Your reasoning that a cluster robot can immobilise itself on the opponent without being counted out simply isnt going to work.

i really wouldnt want to try and stop typhoon 2 with a piece of rope or such device. Have u considered that even if u were allowed to have this device, ur robot would get sucked in and take a few direct hits straight from the cutters (it takes quite a few large hits to stop us). Remember that a cluster would be 33kg, or 66kg max and i really wouldnt want to put a middleweight or lightweight type robot against our disc at full tilt.

I have used our own robot as an example but dont think i am dismissing the other spinners out there, some are equally as damaging but ours came to mind first (wonder why :))

Peter

Read my post,

This robot would also have to forfiet the fight as it would also constitute pinning for more than 30 seconds:

Unless you can remove the entanglement device before the 30 seconds are up you are pinning illegally.

I had a long chat with Mentorn judges about this. I wanted to use chains threaded with piano wire on my wheels to act as a defense. The idea being that if hit by a spinner then they end up wrapped round the bearings and jam the motors. This seems valid to me as you are not and have no intention of immobalising another robot just stopping the weapon.
However if this got caught up in the wheels then you were imobalising the robot.
To many risks of getting disqualified for us.
It would be nice if we could air the idea again as us flippers really do need some form of allowable defense apart from ever thicker amour (boring).
If your going to have rules about entanglement then to balance the equation you need rules limiting kinetic energy imparted by spinners.

I was thinking along the same lines with one difference. The cable/robe/chain whould break at my end. This way I am not pinning the other robot (because I am still moving). I am not throwing/shooting it (the other robot pulls it in) so no projectile.

Is this allowed or is it pinning again?

My guess is that it would count as damage, as its an object that physically brakes of your robot.

i think it would count as damage, just like sacraficial armour

And my opinion is still that it becomes an untethered projectile when done on purpose anyway. And the weapons rule 12.2 neatly covers whatever you wanted to install in order to entangle your opponent as being a big no-no.
Read the rules people !
No entangling ! No permanent pinning ! Not on purpose !!! How difficult is it to understand that ?

Elisabeth, the entire point of this thread is that many of us dont find the rules to be clear. I can see obvious ambiguities in rule 12.2.

Peter has already said his cable isnt thrown or fired - i.e. it isnt projected. How is it a projectile if it isnt projected?

Well, I dont see any ambiguity at all. It must be my extremely active and ever expanding imagination then that keeps me from seeing the problems you saw ?

Cables are forbidden if they can entangle the opponent, therefore you cannot put cables on your robot where it would easily entangle the opponent. This may make the tethered projectile thingy a bit tricky since that tether could entangle your opponent... so think wisely and long before you install such a device. Likewise, the tethers for the flippers can be risky too, unless tucked so deeply inside the robot where they can not do the opponent harm.

My point is that rule 12.2 states clearly enough that nobody is allowed to put loose stuff on their robot with the purpose of entangling the opponent, you are however allowed to arm your robot with weapons that can damage the opponent.

The English language is quite rich but for clarity the writers of the document have been using projectile. I do not think that they meant only bullets or pellets or javelins or whatever, they meant anything your robot throws at your opponent ! If putting ensnaring devices like cables on your robot was done with the purpose of entangling your opponent and your robot cuts it loose then it is a projectile.
Or am I using too difficult words ?

I know this is the Internet, but theres no need to be so confrontational in your arguments.

So we can both refer to it:

12.2. Weapons or defenses, which tend to stop combat completely, of both (or more) robots. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
12.2.1. Entanglement devices. Such as nets, fishing line, cables, string, glues or tapes, which require the match to be stopped and the robots separated. (If this occurs the €˜entangler€™ forfeits the match)

So what of cables which entangle the opponent but do not require the match to be stopped and the robots separated? I can see two meanings of the rule, depending on how you interpret the final which require... clause.

1) There is a subclass of cables, and the subclass which causes the match to be stopped is banned;
2) All cables cause the match to be stopped.

Since it is obviously possible only to clog up a spinning weapon and leave both robots moving, 2) is a false assertion.

As for projectiles - you say yourself these are anything your robot throws at your opponent - my definition exactly. If its thrown, its a projectile, if it isnt thrown, its not a projectile. Trying to define the intent of anything on your robot which could come loose is going to lead to even more ambiguity in my opinion.

In that case, the Co2 bottle that came loose after an attack matilda made on Gravity 1 was a projectile too...

hmmm...?

Id say it was only if it propelled itself with its own gas. If it only moved under Matildas power, then Id say not.

I sometimes get confrontational indeed. I must confess that my patience often gets shortened by physical problems (chronic pain) and the medication I take for it. Its not an excuse, but an explanation. Apologies can be offered on demand.

In any case, anyone reading a sports rules surely must know the difference between intended and accidently even if they are not specifically mentioned ?
If -for instance- I play soccer and tackle my opponents legs I will always get punished by the referee unless it was truly an accident. How much of these accidents have you seen happening during a soccer match ? But the soccer rules state that you should not do bodily harm unto another player. Usually they do not specificly state intentionally and subclause accidentionally. They simply state that it should not be done and leave the rest to common sense and the occasionally alert/bribed referee.

My opinion about the 12.2 rule in the Guidelines:
There are so many possible exceptions to be listed that the Guidelines would take a day to print. Common sense should be able to tell you which intended weapons system falls under these restrictions and which not. Take for instance this little check list:
1) The writers listed the most common problems: entangling devices, TX jamming, heat, fluids, shattering sawblades and projectiles. I see no difficulty in recognising these terms.
2) You all know that losing parts of your robot is counted as damage, hence you cannot afford to loose pieces.
3) You do NOT want to equip your robot with sacrificial props that might entangle your opponent, it leads to instant disqualification.
And I got all that from simply reading the rules. (No, Im lying here, I got all that from having had to translate the rules from English to Dutch for several times already.)

With regard to pinning rules - I think that they were originally written to stop pinning to the floor surface. A net would not do this by itself. Incidentally, if non-floor pinning was not OK, then Razer would have lost a number of fights as they pinned the opposition for many minutes. They certainly did with 13Black in Extreme 2 Allstars Semifinal!!
Clearly Razer pinned the opposition to thenmselves - and this was judged OK.

Another point - where is the dividing line between cluster bots and untethered projectiles?
If the clusters enter the arena as one then separate, why doesnt someone build a heavy with a big hydraulic gun which separates from a very hard, sharp edged antweight at ultra high speed? I dont know of any velocity limit for cluster separation!
Perhaps the rules should specify that clusters should enter already separated....

Richard

If Razer pins an opponent for longer that the allowed time then he should be disqualified. I would urge any judge to look at this closely because I for one would be filing a complaint if it happens when Im present. As far as I know Mentorn had the reputation for leniency regarding the rules for the sake of the show. I do expect from the FRA and Life Event Organisers to be above that.

Regarding clusters - untethered projectiles:
You know that all parts of a cluster must be capable of driving themselves during the entire fight ? That does mean batteries, motors, a speedcontroller and the weapon of course... And think about how fast an antweight can be crushed by the opponent and thus making you lose faster.
Having part of a cluster acting like a weapon on wheels is one of the attractions of having a cluster, but it is not an untethered weapon.

Supposedly one of Vinnies jobs in the Razer team was to man the stopwatch, and ensure that Razer didnt pin an opponent for longer than the legal limit. (Much of the complaint from team Tornado in their first encounter was based on a misunderstanding of how long the pinning was allowed to continue, as I recall.)

Theres probably a grey area between pinning and a robot being grounded on Razers wedge, though.

Im not sure that pinning to the floor was ever the problem - presumably the clause about deliberate damage to the arena would stop you firing rivets through a wedge, amusing though the concept would be. Clamp-bots do need to have time to be effective, so some pinning is clearly a good thing; however, its also clear that grabbing a robot isnt sufficient to end the fight of itself, so there has to be a let go rule.

If its going to be traced back to anything, its the Mortis vs Recyclops fight.

I thought 13 Blacks problem was to do with being stuck in the arena wall, not being pinned by Razer. They should probably have been freed sooner by the house robots - but then Razer should have been freed sooner in the season 6 final. Some you win...

--
Fluppet

After getting stuck in the wall Razer pinned us onto its wedge. However, we had damaged their wedge so that with our weight, the distorted bit dug in the floor. They tried to drive towards the pit and burned out their motors. At one point we we both stationary (with us pinned) for well over a minute - this was edited out of the TV show. Razer were often leniently treated by the Mentorn judges - it sounds like Arthur will be more stringent. Good.

Richard

Oh yes indeed!

After a lot of disscusion it looks like the knockout time is going to be 20 seconds instead of 10.

Comments please.

Arthur.

BTW, Razer always used a stopwatch to time their holds, the only time they held for longer was if they could not release due to being stuck or broken.

But am i right in say there was no time limit for pinning your opponients in Series 7? I think this came about when something happpened in Heat A and people looked to the rule book and it had been taken out or something?
Someone wanna prove me wrong?

Mr Stu

Arthur - maybe they did, but if they were stuck over the time, the judges didnt rule against them! And they certainly didnt volunteer it - but I suppose in the heat of battle, neither would I!

Knock out time of 20 seconds? Hmm. When does it start? In the Mentorn days, the point at which the clock started seemed to be 6 months after the bot stopped sometimes. Will it be a case of starting the 20 second count the second any bot comes to a halt? One timing judge per robot so that they can concentrate on each for when it comes to a halt? Perhaps only broadcast the last 10 seconds to the audience, or everyone will get confused....?

Richard

Thats correct Stu i believe it was with M2 and T2 hydraulic crusher that m2 seemed to be held for a long long time,but after some discussion I belive the outcome was that the pinning rule was not present in series 7.

This rule is where exactly? I guess that we will all be given the combat rules before the event. Allthough its not sporting I see no reason why we cant grab hold of someone and keep hold for the full 5 minutes as long as we are still moving and slaming them into the sides and house robots and maybe even down the pit.

This is not pinning as both robots are still moving. Pinning a robot against the side so that neither robot can move is what I would class this rule as.

On the 10 or 20 seconds rule. If we were imobile for that long and got free, if no one told us the fight was over we would carry on. How do we know for sure that the judges have counted us out.

Two examples here. One was at Newark last year where we lost a fight becasue we got counted out for 10 seconds. On 11 seconds we were back on our feet. The other at Debenham where we were pinned against the wall for more that 30 seconds and the other robot claimed that we were imobile becasue we couldnt get free. They even had the cheek to claimed our weapon was not working. We were simply waiting for them to let go and at the end they drove back and saw that we were fully working.

Richard: Sorry, I wasnt aware of that part of the story. Razer do seem to have had preferential treatment, but the same is true of various big names (Chaos2 vs SMIDSY springs to mind). It sounds as though a deadly embrace was in force (unlike the European Championships), even if it was self-inflicted (*like* the Europeans).

Mark: Im not sure I approve of the idea of keeping a gentle hold on the opponent for the full fight. The idea is not to give an unfair advantage to clamp bots - hydraulic crushers dont hold and stay still, they hold and move around to do damage. Non-clamping weaponry doesnt control the movement of the opponent, and Im happy with the concept that the advantage should last for 30 seconds, after which you should be obliged to re-attack. The alternative, assuming the clamp/crush attack is effective, is that a single attack effectively ends the fight - even if a show is made of inflicting damage.

Of the 10/20 seconds business, there seem to be many cases where the robot is just grounded on something. How about ten seconds, then a yellow flag where the robot must be prodded by a house robot (or, failing that, an opponent) - no attacks permitted during the yellow flag period, so you cant play dead and attack your rescuer. If a robot isnt moving ten seconds after being given a shove, its out. It may take a while for the robot to get shoved, so Id start the second count after that point.

Im trusting here that fights involving full body spinners will tend to have house robots, or there may be a bit of an issue with the definition of prod.

That would seem fairer to me (if beneficial mainly to robots with low ground clearance, which may be a bad thing). Is it too complicated?

--
Fluppet