Does it meet the criteria
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sWpcQ3F_hk&t=32s

Should this ball be considered SCORED? Should 3058 get credit for POSSESSION in the blue zone?

For some context: 3058 was having drivetrain problems, and could only move very slowly, and very vaguely in the direction they intended to go, and sometimes not even that. Fortunately for us, they had mecanum wheels, so we could easily push their side and "help" them put the ball into the goal. 3058 was credited the third ASSIST, and our next cycle started immediately, which meant that the ball was considered SCORED.

After the match, I was fairly convinced that this move should not have credited 3058 the third ASSIST, but should have still been scored as a double ASSIST. Fortunately, the call either way would almost certainly not have effected the outcome of the match.

Looking back though, I guess 3058's move could be considered herding, even though they did not propel themselves. This is an incredibly shaky argument though, and I certainly don't think that, had the call gone the other way, I could convince the head referee that they were herding.

Re: Does it meet the criteria
 

It is certainly scored in my view.

from 3.1.4
A BALL is considered SCORED in an ALLIANCE’S GOAL if
A. a ROBOT causes one (1) of their ALLIANCE’S BALLS to cross completely and remain completely through the opening(s) of one (1) of their ALLIANCE’S GOALS without intervening TEAM member contact,
B. the ALLIANCE ROBOT last in contact with the BALL was entirely between the TRUSS and their ALLIANCE’S HIGH GOALS, and
C. the BALL is not in contact with any ROBOT from that ALLIANCE.

There is no question that a robot caused one of their alliances balls to go into the goal, that the last alliance robot in contact was between the truss and the goal and the ball was not in contact with a robot.

As for possession?

After some thought, I think yes. In my refereeing experience, we would have called the other side for possessing the opposing alliances' ball in the same situation of one blue robot pushing another blue robot to herd a red ball. So it should be a possession when you are doing it to your own ball.

Re: Does it meet the criteria
 

What is the call when a blue robot pushes a red robot to score a blue ball? This happened in Dallas and the ball was ruled out of bounds and no penalties were given but I feel like this isn't consistent from event to event.

Re: Does it meet the criteria
 

That happened at QCR, but the ref had scored it before seeing the Head Ref call no Goal and the alliance had introduced the new ball into play. It ultimately did not affect the outcome of the game and it was during elims so there was no affect to rankings to worry about.

Re: Does it meet the criteria
 

As a Ref, it is a score, but I would not have given 3058 Possession for Assist. It was the other bot that was doing all the work.

This happened at Midwest. Blue Bot caused the ball to be scored, so it was a score. Red bot did not have possession (which is consistent with not giving 3058 an assist). They were not actively trying to herd the ball.

Re: Does it meet the criteria
 

There is nothing in the definition of herding prescribing that the bumping robot be responsible for its own actions. The closest G12 to this is trapping, as there's technically an "attempt" to do something (though the Q&A has chosen to ignore this, and the parsing makes it unclear if trapping occurs during the attempt or if it itself is the attempt).

Due to the lack of a no-call rule this year, the bumper color of the causer doesn't technically matter either. Red pushes blue to repeatedly bump a blue or red ball, blue pushes blue to do so, it's all grammatically the same call (the result being either a foul, barring G14, or an assist-eligible possession).

You feel correctly. Standardization requests have as yet yielded no results.

Re: Does it meet the criteria
 

One can also look at the definition of Bulldozing in G12, which is defined as "inadvertently coming in contact with balls". That is basically saying that unintentional herding is not possession.

Intentions can also be inferred as a requirement since unintentional lodging in a robot is specifically defined as a possession. However, intention does leave the question of unintentional trapping. I would say that it is unintentional if it is momentary (which is not called as adverse possession, but could be called for assist possession), and becomes intentional if the situation persists.

Re: Does it meet the criteria
 

It's possible to infer, but it's not necessary to the logical flow--it depends on whether you use bulldozing as the trump card or limit it to contact that's not described in the rule itself. The examples of deflection seem to fit this. Since it's a blue box, and since the blue box already emphasizes that carrying is by definition independent of advertency, the trump is not clear. Without the inadvertent carrying clarification, I could apply bulldozing to contact with non-floor balls. Either flow is logically sufficient and defensible, as there's no prescribed intent requirement. I broke down and Q&A'd it. Time to ask in public and see if that gets an answer.