Rule Discussion: Possession
 

Stated above is the rule on possession and its definition. My question to you guys is why when a HP or another robot accidentally drops a tube on your flag, and it gets caught, why you are now penalized when you try to score? I have been very puzzled as to the nature of this rule and would like some help clearing this up. I understand they do not want us to gather tubes than score, but if you have a ringer caught on your flag and cannot effectively complete the task because a mishap is it really possession?

Is it really possession if you are not in control of the ringer?

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

I'm pretty sure that it still counts as possesion because any tube you have on your robot is on tube that another team cant have. I think the point of the rule is to keep people from building robots that will gather and take away tubes from others.

our team had to adjust our robot several times for this rule

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

i think that that rule needs to be modified. yes, the tube is "in possesion" meaning connected to the robot, but, it is not in control of the robot. a couple of teams at vcu got penalized for this because they got caught with a tube on the flag and proceeded to score thinking that the rule wouldn't apply because they weren't in control of the tube.

i personally think that needs to be modified, b/c teams will "accidentally" try to put tube on the robot's flags.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

Let's say you are the blue alliance. IF the blue human player throws a ringer, and it lands on your robot, you are in possession of the ringer and once you drop the ringer you currently have in possession, you cannot pick up another until you drop the one you have (almost impossible if its on the flag), or you will get a penalty.

IF the red human player throws a ringer on your robot, you would not be in possession of the ringer, nor would you receive a penalty. The red alliance would receive a penalty (but I don't remember why it would be called, just that it would be).

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

The whole thing of defining possesion based on it getting stuck on the flag is kinda stupid.

If herding, which also defines possesion is ruled this way - what is the big deal to clarify the same for tubes caught on flags?

Here is the 'official' answer as found in the FIRST Q&A:

"HERDING" implies that you are attempting to direct multiple Game Pieces to a particular location. Merely driving into an area occupied by multiple Game Pieces in an attempt to clear the area and letting them randomly scatter would not be considered herding.

Clearly, the words "attempting to direct" & "particular location", imply intent.

As with flag ringers - intent is extremely doubtful. Accidental is more like it, even when attempting to get one on an opponent, it takes alot of luck.

Isn't the fact that the team has to deal with the obstruction of having a tube stuck on the flag pole enough of a penalty?

Sorry - but this is one rule that is really unneccessary (especially when everyone isn't mounting the flags per the required specifications).

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

glr-robot ready to score- human player throws--- tube lands on tube---i think they got called on it.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

I am going by memory but I believe that the rules are clear. IF you have a tube in your possession and another tube is dropped on your robot you may score that tube but MUST remove the other one before before attempting to aquire another. The rules (right or wrong) are that you may only have one in your possession and the Q&A clarified that. Our team tossed one on themselves and had to wait for help or change their playing style. It is part of the game challenge and was clearly defined a long time ago.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

I think having the tube interrupt a bot from capping is not a part of the game challenge. It seems more like an unnecessary nuisance. Unless - seeing a bot drive back and forth, crashing into things to get the flag off is amusing.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

I personally Think that this rule is stupid because the flags are required by FIRST not the teams. If it was not for FIRST these flags would not be on the robot to begin with, therefore not having to worry about this problem. I also understand this rule, that some of you might not be realizing why it might be here. I think that some teams may have built their robot to get tubes of of their flag pole ("the innocent way of herding") and all of a sudden be able to get this tube off when it pays off the most. If there is a row of 7 and they allow a robot to pick up tubes that has a tube on the flag pole and they are scoring them then they already have # 8 on them, and all of a sudden they are able to get it off and score a 256 when they could have gotten it off to begin with. Now if I am blue and red throws a tube on me I should be able to score blue tubes even if red gets the penalty. This rule is just like teams going into the wrong zone at the wrong time geting the 30 pt penalty(if they are there the whole time) because they have nothing to lose if they have 0 and you have 0 they are just stopping you from beating them, I think that the 30 pt penalty should be added to the opposing alliances score because this rule sucks and it is not right for teams to do this just because:)

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

I think good alliance teamwork can overcome the problem this rule presents. Perhaps thats what FIRST was thinking.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

How?

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

Simple - if one of the alliance partners has a "claw" manipulator, it simply grabs the ringer and lifts it off its partner.
EDIT: I would love to see a robot on an opposing alliance do that, especially if it "accidentally" dropped the tube in the first place. Very GP. Kind of like the robot picking up the other one in the Hangin-A-Round animation.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

That's a very big "if". Consider a team that has a grabber mounted to an elevator that doesn't have the ability to reach into their partners robot. Or an alliance made up of three ramp bots or a combination of ramps and low scorers.

The rule has some serious implications for some teams (we dealt with the issue of a tube over our flag in one match and spent about 40 seconds dislodging it) and can impact the results of the match. Perhaps this is one of those instances where referees can be allowed to interpret intention. If a team's robot has a tube inadvertently thrown over their flag (either by their own alliance or their opponents), they can continue to score with other tubes but can't ever score with the tube on their flag. I know it isn't the most ideal solution but it would be a workable one. From a refereeing standpoint you don't want to have to judge intention but this may be one of those situations where it would be pretty clear.

Sean

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

It indeed is a very big IF. The only match that happen to us was when we had two ramp bots in our alliance.

Re: Rule Discussion: Possession
 

I think this one of the areas that refs can easily tell when a robot is storing tubes and when a tube has been accidently placed on the robot. For my two cents, an accident should not cause a robot to fail it's mission. Common sense should prevail.

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.