[gpetilli]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I would say yes, an immobile robot can possess a ball via trapping.



Emphasis mine.

If Redabot 1 is immobile on the field, and Redabot 2 pushes a ball between the two of them such that the ball is pinned between both robots and unable to move, and neither robot has sole possession (that is, if either robot were to suddenly disappear, the ball would be free to move around), I would argue that the ball is trapped, per the definition of POSSESSION.

Because both robots are part of the trap, possession must be awarded to both robots simultaneously. The trap (and therefore possession) does not exist without the presence of BOTH robots.

Redabot 2 could even back up slightly, releasing the ball before retaking control of it to demonstrate that Redabot 1 was an integral part of the trap.

Whether or not the refs will call it this way remains to be seen, but I don't see a good argument for why this shouldn't be a trap.

sounds like "overt isolation" and clearly not in the spirit of gratuitous professionalism