G12 Clarification

[aldaeron]

I wanted to get everyone's opinion on G12. The attached image sums it up pretty well, but I will type it out here.

The blue alliance has one stationary robot with POSSESSION of the blue ball in the white zone.

The red alliance has one robot with the red ball near its goal ready to score.

If blue kicks the ball to an alliance partner in front of its goal and a red robot intentionally moves into the path of the ball changing the ball's trajectory. Per G12 is that “launching” (penalty) or “deflecting” (legal)?

Note that this red robot is nowhere near its ball so there is no chance it is "playing its own ball"

Yes I know that Q&A will have the final say. I just want to see what everyone here thinks.

Thanks!

-matto-

[Anupam Goli]

According to G12:

Examples of BALL interaction that are not POSSESSION are

A. “bulldozing” (inadvertently coming in contact with BALLS that happen to be in the path of the ROBOT as it moves about the FIELD) and

B. “deflecting” (being hit by a propelled BALL that bounces or rolls off the ROBOT).

The situation you are describing is deflection, but only in the event that the red robot doesn't attempt to herd the deflected ball or control it. Teams are allowed to block passes in this manner.

[Iaquinto.Joe]

If blue kicks the ball to an alliance partner in front of its goal and a red robot intentionally moves into the path of the ball changing the ball's trajectory. Per G12 is that “launching” (penalty) or “deflecting” (legal)?


I think it's defined as bulldozing if the robot continues to move forwards and the ball hits the robot at a high enough speed. What I mean is, if the ball is slowly moving towards the alliance partner and the red robot deliberately makes a motion to hit the ball, that is a launch. But if there was a high speed kick such that the red robot could not move from the balls trajectory in time, that would be deflection. If the red robot makes a motion to impel the ball into a specific direction, it is a launch.

[aldaeron]

Playing devil's advocate G12 also says (emphasis mine)

“launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction)

You could argue that the ball was directed to the desired location of "not to the second alliance mate" or "to the side or the arena, away from the second alliance mate"

My thought was intentional direction of any kind of the opponent's ball would draw a penalty.

I could be over thinking it and I expect GDC will clarify.

[Racer26]

My interpretation of the way the GDC intends for this game to be played is that defense of this variety is both allowed and encouraged, though I agree the letter of the rule is a bit ambiguous.

Clearly, they don't intend for me to be grabbing, carrying or throwing my opponents BALLs, but I can't see them also meaning to discourage defensive bulldozing of an opponent's BALL. They seem to have tried to go in that direction with the blue box on the POSSESSION rule, but its a bit unclear how 'herding' will be called, both for the purposes of ASSISTs and for the purposes of POSSESSING and opponents BALL.

[$wimmer3138]

The way I've read the rule is that this could be legal and illegal. Two examples follow:

Legal:
If the blue balls is in motion and hits a red robot, then it is considered deflection.

Illegal:
If the blue ball is in motion or stationary and a red robot hits the ball it is considered launching.

*To put it short and sweet, ball hits robot, Legal. Robot hits ball, Illegal.

[Anupam Goli]

The way I've read the rule is that this could be legal and illegal. Two examples follow:

Legal:
If the blue balls is in motion and hits a red robot, then it is considered deflection.

Illegal:
If the blue ball is in motion or stationary and a red robot hits the ball it is considered launching.

*To put it short and sweet, ball hits robot, Legal. Robot hits ball, Illegal.

This is also open for interpretation as well. For the second scenario, if the red robot inadvertently hits it, that's "bulldozing", and that's perfectly legal. I think the only way to really see the difference between launching and bulldozing or deflecting is the intent to not only block, but to control the ball.

[cmrnpizzo14]

Insert usual GDC has the final say caveat and whatnot here....

I feel that it is impossible for your robot to be POSSESSING an opposing alliances ball if it contacts the ball on the side of the robot that is perpendicular to your drive base (for tank drives, it gets into more of a grey area if you are running mecs or swerve or something like that). This seems like the most logical ruling for gameplay as you could still block passes and passing lanes with your robot but you wouldn't be actively pushing the balls away from your opponent and locking down the only game piece in play.

[cgmv123]

My opinion* is that the red robot is bulldozing, which is not possession and therefore not a foul. Just because your alliance's ball is not near the red robot doesn't mean the only strategic advantage from the red robot moving is blocking the blue alliance's pass. The red robot could be setting up for the next cycle.

*I am not the GDC. My answer is not official.

[Flyte]

I feel that if the red alliance robot is in the current path of the ball and it is deflected of that robot than it would be "bulldozing." If the red alliance robot purposely moves into the path of the ball after it has been launched then I would consider it "launching."

[themccannman]

I would say one instance of contact with the ball is a deflection, two or more is herding or launching.

[Anupam Goli]

I feel that if the red alliance robot is in the current path of the ball and it is deflected of that robot than it would be "bulldozing." If the red alliance robot purposely moves into the path of the ball after it has been launched then I would consider it "launching."

If that is the case, then wouldn't any robot who moves in front of a ball in the goalie zone to block the shot get a technical foul? I doubt this was the intention of the "launching" definition.

[Flyte]

If that is the case, then wouldn't any robot who moves in front of a ball in the goalie zone to block the shot get a technical foul? I doubt this was the intention of the "luanching" definition.

I feel that the goalie zone would be an exception.

[Anupam Goli]

I feel that the goalie zone would be an exception.

Right, but it doesn't say anywhere in the rules that goalie bots are exempt from the definition of launching. Remember, the definition of launching is “launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction). Impelling implies active control of the ball. Based on this, a robot that is launching a ball is one that is actively controlling the ball before hand and it exerts a force on the ball in order for it to go to a specific or desired location or direction.

Go up to FIRST Q&A and submit for a rule clarification if you feel this definition is too loose (i'll admit, possession rules are kind of unclear and vague in my opinion as well.)

[Cal578]

Rule G12, blue box, makes it pretty clear.
Examples of BALL interaction that are not POSSESSION are
A. “bulldozing” (inadvertently coming in contact with BALLS that happen to be in the path of the ROBOT as it moves about the FIELD) and
B. “deflecting” (being hit by a propelled BALL that bounces or rolls off the ROBOT).
Note that the definition of "deflecting" has nothing to do with motion of the robot. The red robot of the OP's diagram can be deliberately moving into the path of the ball, and it's still a deflection. So, no penalty.

But, if the red robot chases the blue ball and bumps it again, that could be interpreted as Herding, which is Possession, and that would get a penalty.

[cgmv123]

I still think bulldozing is a better way to characterize the action of the the red robot. The red robot is moving about the field and contacts the blue ball. The (non)presence of the red alliance's ball is irrelevant. The red robot has an equal right to that part of the field.

*I'm not the GDC

[Tem1514 Mentor]

I think that doing this would also interrupt the assist cycle stopping an extra 10 points from being scored, if not more.

These are all questions that someone needs to ask in the Q&A. I would, but don't have access as parent mentor. :(

[EricH]

I think that doing this would also interrupt the assist cycle stopping an extra 10 points from being scored, if not more.

These are all questions that someone needs to ask in the Q&A. I would, but don't have access as parent mentor. :(

Actually, no, I don't think so (on the first part). Though there IS a question in Q&A on that very topic right now.

As for the 2nd part... Q&A is OPEN for questions. I don't have access either. So, who's going to ask?