Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

This has been clearly laid out as a possible situation since build season, and teams should have anticipated the possibility of this happening. More importantly, it isn't an incredibly common occasion. It shouldn't happen more than once or twice to a team per event, and most teams will avoid it completely.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

It happened to our team twice... once an alliance robot dropped it over our flag when we were trying to score, the second time an alliance partner threw it onto our flagpole while attempting to hit the field/rack. We also saw it happen at least 10 other times at FLR.

IMO I wish the rule were "in control of" not "in possession of". The way our team interpreted this rule we thought it meant we couldnt stack tubes on our robot and carry them to the rack to score repeatedly. To be honest(and I know this is our own fault), the flag was an afterthought for us. Our mechanical lead for the arm design this year is new, and he missed where the location of the flagpole had to be. We ended up able to mount it at the top of our mast, but unless our arm is all the way up(which is HIGHLY dangerous and stopped in software control), a tube can ring our flagpole. Our arm can easily dislodge a tube without the flag there, but once the flag is in, we cant dislodge it ourselves.

I guess I get the rule, and we will deal with it as is, but its frustrating to have a robot that can score that gets ringed in the first 20 seconds and has to just drive around on defense for the rest of the match, not even because something is broken.

I just have to wonder if the GDC really expected flags to catch ringers as much as they are.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

i dont actually mind the rule. it has been there since the game was reveiled. i just hope the refs can stay consitent with it. at NJ, i saw one team get penalized twice in their match, but another team was not penalized when the same thing happened to them.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

I hope everyone realizes this rule applies ONLY to tubes placed by their own alliance. If an opponent places a ringer on your robot, it is ignored. And the opponent will be penalized if it is done on purpose.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

One of the things I like to emphasize to the other teams we are matched up with is to not throw ringers onto the field unless there is a robot that needs to pick one up. Littering the field with tubes only causes problems especially with ringing a alliance robot or littering the home zone.

Once the ramp bot is in the home zone and the other bots are on their way then fire away at the rack. But until then it’s a no-no.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

Could you please point out where this is stated?

EDIT:
POSSESSION: a GAME PIECE is considered to be in the POSSESSION of a ROBOT if it is
being fully supported by the ROBOT, or if the ROBOT is controlling the position and movement of
the GAME PIECE. (emphasis added by me)

If a tube is on the robot and not touching the ground at all, then the robot has possession of it.

<G09> POSSESSION - ROBOTS may only have 1 (one) GAME PIECE in their POSSESSION at
any time during the match. A 10-point penalty will be assessed for each infraction.
(...) GAME PIECES may fall on to a ROBOT during the course of normal
game play (e.g. a RINGER falls on a ROBOT while attempting to HANG it on a Spider Leg).
In such cases, GAME PIECES that are already in the POSSESSION of the ROBOT may be
played. However, the additional GAME PIECE must be removed from the ROBOT (either
by the ROBOT or by an ALLIANCE partner) before it can POSSESS a new GAME PIECE.
GAME PIECES may not be intentionally placed on opposing ROBOTS for the purpose of
causing a violation of this rule. Any such GAME PIECE placements will not be considered
in POSSESSION of the affected ROBOT, and will be ignored.


I do not see anything regarding which alliance did the "dropping." I do not believe an alliance partner would intentionally drop a ringer on a robot, and I don't believe the refs should be accountable for the intentions of a robot driver. If a ringer is inadvertently placed on a robot, the robot must get rid of that ringer before it can pick up and score any other tubes.
Also, I didn't see any penalties for dropping a tube on a competitor (except for perhaps a yellow card)

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

I never said that I like the rule, endorsed it or think it is "fair". It is however a clear rule that was given and backed on the Q&A's. Why is everone so surprised and whinning about this? It is part of the challege live with it. There are so many other issues that are really important and have been changed, modified or misinterpreted that we should be talking to FIRST about, not this.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

We accidentaly threw a ringer onto our flag, but the way our arm is designed, we can get it off without to much effort. Other temas are not as lucky. I see how they can use this to enforce the carefulness of how you throw the ringers, but also, it was FIRST that makes you have the flag on the robot sticking straight up.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

From the head referee at the Bayou Regionals, it is located in the FIRST Q&A.

Also, to add... We had a ringer thrown over our flag from our own alliance and was penalized twice for it. Once because we already had a ringer in our possession in our claw when it happened, and again when our main driver insisted to continue scoring. I think this rule is not fair because we have no choice in the design of the flag holder, placement of the flag holder, or whether or not we want the flag on our robot.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

This exact thing happened to us in our third match of the quarter finals at BAE. It was our third match and we were in an alliance with 1276, they were our only working scoring bot, and our human player threw a tube right on to their flag holder. This forced 1276 to stop scoring and had to play defense with us. This basically lost us the match, flags and inner tubes are not a good mix...

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

Yes, I agree with Steve and Sean - this rule is NOT new or changed from the beginning and it has always been part of the challenge.

I don't much like it, BUT - We all must learn to deal with it.

Since the odds of this happening is the same for all robots is the same, as long as everyone mounts the flag per the requirement - just make sure everyone inspected meets the flag requirement.

Then, be very, very, careful where and when you throw the tubes.

Timing and Location is everything!

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

I must be mistaken about a penalty being assessed; I can't find that either. See where I bolded the pertinent sentences in <G09> that you quoted. It most specifically says it matters which alliance did the dropping.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

yeah, I missed the "opposing" part. Thanks for pointing that out. The prescription on my contacts must have run out.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

Did any teams actually receive a penalty for this? We had this happen to us twice (once in practice, once on Friday, both times able to get it back off thanks to our arm design), and we never got penalized. We did score one tube with the other one stuck on us, so that one didn't count towards our score, but we never actually received penalty points.

I really think human players just need to be careful on this one; if you're careless enough to throw the tube onto your robot's flag, you're going to pay for it.

On a side note pertaining to flags, did any other Regionals implement the "caution flag" system (not to be confused with yellow cards)? At Arizona teams that had a long arm were given a flag with a piece of caution tape tied to it. This served as a warning to the referees to avoid the edges of the field when this robot was near so they wouldn't get their heads taken off, as well as to watch for violations of the 72" box rule.