Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Nothing needs to be "fixed"...

If your robot is designed to catch at any time, that is your design decision, and you need to stay away from the opponent's balls. If you want to be in the mix pushing people around, especially when your opponent is trying to TRUSS/CATCH, your robot better not be able to catch balls.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Wrong. If an opponents ball lands in your robot and you stop moving and you were not purposefully catching the ball, then you are not shielding the ball purposefully from the other alliance.

If the other alliance's ball happens to land inside your robot and it was inadvertent, if you stop moving immediately then it would seem that you would not be penalized.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Agreed, I would not consider a ball inside of your robot as trapping. But, I would also not consider this the intent, or even a strategy that should be implemented in any way.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

The only thing this update was trying to change/clarify is the fact that a single hit of the ball with the bumpers or any other static part of the robot is not considered possession. A bot that unintentionally catches a ball is affected as it always was.

I think this change was necessary because there would have been controversy on every call/no call made in regards to a robot contacting an opposing alliance's ball. I just hope strategically this doesn't hurt the game too much. Assisting is going to be significantly harder now, at least at regionals, because not only does an alliance bot need to do more to gain possession, but a defending bot can literally seek to hit the ball now.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

As the rules are written, I believe you're right.

That being said, I highly doubt the call will be this cut and dry. If you catch a ball, put your hands up in the air, and make it clear to the refs that you did not intend to do it, and you don't want to actively release it, then what happens? Do you sit there for the rest of the match as a black hole? Does the Head Ref make the call to put another ball into play as if your robot died with a ball in it? It's an interesting (and annoying) situation to think about for sure.

If anything, there needs to be some sort of grace period for an unintentional catch, where a machine is given some reasonable amount of time (say 5-10 seconds) to get the ball out of their robot without being penalized - although even that isn't that simple. On paper, there are certain situations where it may make sense for a team to build a human load only machine, where the only method of releasing the ball they have is a truss or goal shot - at that point, does them shooting the ball (where ever) turn an accident into a strategic advantage? Teams with intakes or other methods of doing a 'slow' and or 'controlled' ball release wouldn't really be an issue here, since they could essentially drop the ball where it was caught and carry on with the match.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Defense is simple. Stop trying to lawyer the rules. Play the robot not the ball.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Yeah play the robot.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

With this change it makes it clear that you are allowed to play the ball though.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

What if you are the team trying to TRUSS/CATCH?

Is catching now not only a design challenge, but a high risk strategy? I don't think that the intent of the game was to deter teams from catching balls. This seems to be equivalent to a rule that stated "a high goal shot that hits the player station wall but does not enter the goal will be a penalty". If this were a rule, would you take the risk hope you never miss a shot?

Is anyone going to design a catching robot knowing that any random bouncing opponent ball could potentially cause a penalty? I know that this change (that you can't eject an opponent's ball from your robot without a penalty) is causing us to question the validity of a catch at all...

- Mr. Van

PS - If making "assists" is now more difficult (because an opponent is able to simply bump the ball away from you as you try to pass from one robot to another), then this
makes me fear that this game may dissolve into most robots playing defense against each other and traditionally strong teams running the field by themselves bypassing any assists (inbound, truss, high goal - 20 pts/cycle - repeat - while everyone else is in shoving matches).

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

From G12:
Since possession, specifically trapping, can be defined as overt isolation, you would be penalized for inadvertently catching the ball and stopping.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

I'd recommend taking a really close look at the definition of trapping:

“trapping” (overt isolation OR holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them). -emphasis on the first OR is mine

The way I read that rule, overt isolation of the opponents ball is trapping; and catching it and leaving it inside your robot would be pretty "overt isolation".

Just my $0.02

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

I stand corrected. I still thought it would have been a penalty anyway since that is the intent of the rule in the first place.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

I'd argue that if your robot is in a configuration in such that it could catch a ball, the burden is on you to be aware of where both your and the opponent's ball is and make sure you don't catch the opponent's ball. These aren't "random bouncing balls", there is one ball of each color to keep track of.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

The "or" you are referencing is between Overt Isolation and Holding; its not 2 different definitions. They are both still being modified by purposefully doing so. Over Isolation means that you are being obvious in keeping the ball away from the other alliance.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Intent plays no role in possession.

Read G12