Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

So I threw this idea to a few teams that I worked with at the beginning, but it didn't fit with what the teams goals were. So I'm wondering, did anyone build an active goalie?

What I mean is to have a goalie pole that was mounted on either a piston or a motorized linkage that spins rapidly. This I feel should be within the rules but effectively enlarging the blocking zone by factor of 4-5x, maybe even utilize the 20inch per side beyond frame perimeter rule, and have it rotate in a 60inch diameter circle...

Did any team build anything like this? Was it effective?

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

you mean below the 5 ft height limit?

or do you mean that the 8 ft pole is on your 20" extension? I think it would be more effective to move the robot.

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

I am not sure if I understand this correctly but I think that a Q&A earlier this year stated that if the mechanism was in motion relative to your robot frame while it contacts an opponents ball then it is considered possession.

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

You would be correct. Team 1710 has a defense "arm" that moves back and forth on rails, but not one that spins.

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

I meant above 5 feet, have the <6" cylinder pole on a spinning setup on a separate axis.

So was 1710's blocker deemed legal? or would was it illegal based on the Q&A ruling?

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

1710 is able to use it. The pole is not in motion when the ball is being blocked.

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

On newton one of the goalie bots blocked the top of the low goal and I saw a ball resting between the robot and part of the low goal with out going in for about 30 seconds. No foul was called for possession because the opposing robot cant cause them to possess the ball. Just like you cant just spit into an opponents catcher. By the same logic the opposing robot is putting the ball into your mechanism so even if it is posetion it is not a foul...

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

That is why coaches need to know the rules and when to challenge. If they had a copy of Q&A 170 with them I believe they could have challenged.

Game - The Game » Game Rules
Q170 Q. Regarding possession of opposing alliance's ball: If a robot is attempting to score a 1-pt goal, if an appendage of a defending robot either a) holds the ball from dropping into the top of the goal or b) causes the ball to be "pinned" as it's pushed in the front goal, would it be illegal possession?

FRC4120 on 2014-01-18 | 10 Followers
A. Yes.
Published by GDC

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

Darn, you beat me to it. :(

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

973's goalie post actuated from one side of their frame to the other, but I don't think anyone had a goalie post that spun around the outside of their robot.

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

Good, that makes at least 2 coaches that were on Newton that would have challanged :D

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

Although my team never implemented my idea of a goalie bot into our final design, I did, however, come up with a great goalie bot.

So, crab/swerve goalie bot with an extension.

Get in sideways, strafe to block (maybe auto-block), then get out to play as an offender.

Using this idea, we also thought that in auto, we can have an auto-detection of the autonomous balls, then predict their trajectory, and block the balls. This losses the 5 point bonus in the beginning, and any other possible scoring we may have been able to do, but it would be a game changer. If you block out at least 50% of the balls in auto, you are up in points, significantly at the start of teleop. Not to mention you also made it so that your opponents need to chase down the balls before starting an actual cycle.

Of course this bot will include a scorer, most likely a claw.

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

Sooooo.... 1114, 469, 973?

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

This happened to us on Newton - Match Q130 by 1710 when our alliance (48) was trying to clear an autonomous ball. It was pinned above the low goal for about 23 seconds. It was called as an extended possession (50 point) foul. After it eventually dropped in the goal, with a little nudging by 48, it was scored for 1 point. Though I thought it should of been a possession foul and the ball should of been returned to the HP.

You can see the refs gathering by the goal to determine why the ball wasn't scoring at the 50 sec mark..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0F--bqMLug

Re: Did anyone build an "active" goalie post?
 

You forgot the swerve aspect.