Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Administrative Manual:
Game Manual:

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

That really opens up some defensive play.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Possessing the opponents ball is still prohibited. Care to explain your thoughts?

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Hit it.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

The new standard for ground-only (no manipulator) POSSESSION is herding (repeated pushing or bumping) and trapping. If you drive by, and hit the opponents ball away, then drive away, you're good. Basically, if you aren't in control of it after you hit it (once) away, you should be penalty free.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Exactly, you can now plow into their ball once and drive away.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

I believe the concern was that attempting to deflect an opponents ball (ie a single bump on the ball that sent it in a new, likely desired, direction) could be considered launching and earn a penalty via g12. This update makes it clear that getting in the way like that is legal and does not incur a penalty.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

I have a question on the bumper rule. Do robot wheels qualify as part of the "frame" for the purposes of backing the bumper less than 1/4" away from the plywood? Can the wheels be the "frame" members that break up the span between the ends into <8" long portions, for the purposes of satisfying the bumper rules.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Per R2,
Wheels would not qualify as fixed, non-articulated structural elements. If I were inspecting your robot, I would not count the wheels as sufficient backing for the bumpers, but as always the only definitive answer you can get is the Q&A.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

So, if you catch an opponents ball (by mistake - not through any intent on either alliance's part), then you incur a penalty if you keep it, and you incur a penalty if you kick it out of your robot?

Seems to provide a powerful deterrent to an open-topped passive catching design.

Do I have this correct?

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

That's the way I always understood the rule, and the update doesn't seem to have changed that.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

I think this update further clarifies POSSESSION as:

So, now there is no doubt that if an opponent ball accidentally landed in your robot and you use a mechanism to remove the ball, you can be penalized.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Technically there is still a loop hole. If you catch the opposing alliance's ball and don't move you have not technically possessed the ball according to the definition.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Incorrect. You are "Trapping" the ball

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

So, if an opponent's ball lands in your robot, the only way to not incur a penalty is to not move?

It seems to me then that "catching" requires some sort of active mechanism that will NOT work unless you really want it to, or you must make a covered top for your robot so that a ball can't fall into it at all. For example, all of the "3-day" robots are very vulnerable to opponent's balls landing in them.

I thought that the Truss Toss & Catch was one of the best elements in the game, but now instead of designing something that will trap a flying ball, we've got to make sure we DON'T catch an errant bounce from our opponent.

I hope this gets fixed quickly!

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

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

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Just because an action was not intentional doesn't mean that it doesn't give your alliance an advantage. An unintentional catch should still be penelized. Be conscious of where the opponent's ball is.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Then it comes to the point of your opponent cannot cause you to get a penalty. If your opponent shoots/launches the ball, how long after the shot is the ball still considered in control by that opponent? If the ball is launched and it bounces 1x, 2x, 3x, etc. how long does it take for that to no longer be the resultant of that robot?

If a ball is shot by Robot-A and it bounces once and then lands in Robot-B, is there no penalty because Robot-A cannot cause Robot-B to get a penalty? How about 2 bounces? 3 bounces? No bounces? When does the safety valve get turned off to where Robot-B has to take responsibility?

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

If a robot catches the opposing alliances ball either they are getting the penalty or the opposing bot will. However, I only see the opposing bot getting a penalty if the catching bot had been in the same position for a considerable amount of time and it appears that the bot went out of its way to shoot in that direction.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

In light of this update, I have a hypothetical for you CDers...

If our robot carries the ball such that some part of the ball is outside our frame perimeter - is it legal for an opposing robot to bump our robot (intentionally) in a spot where the opposing robot (or an appendage of the opposing robot) will hit the ball.

And the same question but what if this action necessarily damages elements of our robot supporting the ball?

I'm not talking about incidental contact but a strategy aimed at dislodging the ball which has near certainty of impacting/damaging our robot extensions?

Before this update, I thought that might be launching. But it clearly is not now - I think.

Comments?

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

This is going to be a physical game. Design your appendages that exit the frame perimeter accordingly.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

I've always been under the assumption that deflecting passes (driving into ball and knocking it once) was legal. Am I the only one that views this is a rule confirmation and not a change? :confused:

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

For reference, here is rule <G14> and the blue box beneath rule <G12>. I have bolded portions that I find particularly relevant to this discussion.

While I am not a ref nor a member of the GDC, so my opinion carries no official weight, my interpretation of <G14> is that the actions of the offending team must be clearly intentional (in order to be classified as a "strategy") and provide the opponent with little or no alternatives to taking a penalty (in order to be classified as "forcing"). With that in mind, I would argue that Robot-A does not recieve a penalty in any of the scenarios you named, since it did not incorporate a strategy solely aimed at forcing Robot-B to take a penalty. Since Robot-A did not violate <G14>, Robot-B would then be assessed a <G12> penalty for (inadvertently) possessing an opponent's ball. Even if the ball did not bounce, I would argue the same thing, unless Robot-A took obvious action to aim towards Robot-B.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

This isn't great. Our team has made what we consider to be a pretty great ball pick up device. If the ball touches our front bumper, we "own it". Tonight, our best driver couldn't pick up the ball with a single robot (poorly driven by me) bulldozing the ball out of the way. At all. After 30 minutes of driving. The game will be won by a single team whose strategy involves no contact (of the ball) with the floor.

<slightly negative prediction>
We'll see the return of "if you don't hit our game piece, we won't hit yours" and the horrible tensions between teams it creates.
</slightly negative prediction>

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

You're telling me one robot was able to keep you from ever getting your front bumper to touch the ball for 30 minutes?

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Are you sure that you were not "herding" the ball rather than '"bulldozing"? If you were "herding" the ball, then you POSSESSED the ball.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Sorry- a clarification is needed. The pickup robot was geared for 8 fps, the defense was geared two speeds, 15 and 6 fps.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

In my interpretation - until officially taught otherwise - that would be one possession, not two. So one foul, not two.

Which is what the rules warned against since day 1 - beware designs that allow you to possess an opponent's ball.

Without the revision, every time you touched an opponent's ball and redirected it, it would be a foul. Can we say hundreds of foul points?

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

I view it the same way. Assists are worth a lot of points (1 or 2 high goal scores each), they shouldn't be as simple to get as roll the ball to my partner. If you put the ball on the ground you are taking a risk that you will have to spend a significant amount of time in chasing it down again, and the point values are in line with that risk.

That is where the real advantage of catching mechanisms comes in to play, not in getting catch points but in accomplishing assists under defense. You will have to avoid inadvertent catching of an opponents ball, but that is no different than making sure you don't accidentally pick up an opponents game piece in any other game. I will admit my team does not have much to lose from this update, we were always intending on designing our catching mechanism to collapse so that we will have a clear shot at the high goal.

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

I view it as overdue. I also assumed that, but due to the definition of launching being a little vague, was not sure (using the standard definition of "impel"). Multiple Q&As didn't answer the question satisfactorily.

This update, in one "minor" change, resolves that quite neatly. Now to avoid possessing the ball while defending it...

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

Beautiful you play the robot you oaky the best defense couldn't have been said better

Re: Team Update 1-17-2014
 

I think you're underestimating how difficult it is to accidentally catch your opponents ball. There's only one ball. and your opponents can't be trying to aim it in your robot, or they would draw a foul for attempting to foul you. I really wouldn't put any concern into this possibility, as catching a ball from your own cooperating alliance member is already challenging enough.