Re: Who Owns This Goal
 

For anyone who is confused, it looks like the blue tetra was horizontally inserted (nested) inside the red tetra, and then both were put on the tower together. I say blue is on top, because each vertex of blue is above the corresponding vertex on red. However, blue is probably not within the 6" measure, so red gets the tower.

Re: Who Owns This Goal
 

I agree. But if I was the ref, at first glance I would give it to red. But after further inspection I'd go with blue. :]

Re: Who Owns This Goal
 

I don't think this is an unlikely thing at all.

If red comes in from one side and blue comes in from the other, I think it is likely that the tetras may meet above the goal and perhaps nest like this (it is quite easy if both robots are trying to get their tetra above the goal and one grabs by the apex of the tetra and other grabs by the bar).

In this case, once one or the other sees the nesting they are likely to let go rather than risk the rules for taking a tetra off the top.

In this case I think it is likely that the situation pictured will happen.

My ruling would be that Nonbody owns this goal. Neither seated properly, so neither count as a stack.

I don't think that is how the rules are, but that is how I would like them to be.

Joe J.

Re: Who Owns This Goal
 

A check of the definition of "scored" and "stacked" proves that neither the red nor the blue tetras are stacked on the black tetra.

--Petey

Re: Who Owns This Goal
 

So then the only way more points could be scored on this goal, or that the goal can change ownership is by removing these two tetras which would now be legal?

Re: Who Owns This Goal
 

Either that, or this is a very effective way to block a tetra goal from being scored upon.

Re: Who Owns This Goal
 

SCORED - a tetra is scored when it is contained within a goal or stacked on top of a goal

STACKED - a tetra is stacked when it is placed on top of a goal or on top of another stacked tetra. to be considered stacked, the tetra must be properly seated on the subordinate goal or tetra such that all four apex connectors are within six inches of the supporting structure. Due to the goal and tetra geometries, a tetra may occasionally not completely "seat" on the goal or subordinate tetra, and remain precariously positioned on top of the structure. such tetras are not considered stacked. A tetra is not considered stacked if it is touching a robot of the same alliance.

SUPPORTED - if the "supporting object" is removed, the tetra would not remain scored or stacked

According to the stacked definition, the blue tetra is not considered stacked (because all four apexes are not within 6 inches of the goal) and would thus be disregarded . considering that, one only needs to look at the red tetra is comparison to the goal, which would become its supporting object. All four red apexes are within six inches of the goal, and their by, red owns the goal.

Re: Who Owns This Goal
 

Our team discovered the same configuration potential a few days ago. You can create it easily in the following manner: stack a red tetra on a blue tetra; rotate the assembly 90 degrees so that is it on its "side"; and place the resulting rotated assembly on top of a goal. The configuration shown in Alan's picture will result.

With regard to the interpretation of ownership, I believe that Keith is correct, and for the reasons (and specific rules) that he cited. The blue tetra is invalid. The red tetra is "STACKED," and "OWNS" the goal.

-dave

Re: Who Owns This Goal
 

I can see that this thread is creating some problems. Maybe I can contact some higher ups and see what they say. I'll reply when I have an answer.

Re: Who Owns This Goal
 

Steven,
If you look up 1 post, you'll notice "Mr. Lavery" responded.
He's about as high up as you get these days.

If a ruling is necessary (I'm not convinced it is) I'm positive we'll see a response in the Q/A or in a team update.

JV