Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad House
I've seen a decent amount of matches, where an opponent robot pushes your ball into your goal. Most of the time, they do not get a tech foul for possession, and it doesnt count as scored, even though I've seen some refs call it as scored. This takes a good while of time to get the refs to figure out what to do, and I was wondering how some of the refs are calling this, and why it would not be a possession, because it is very consequential.
|
I wouldn't want to say this is how I'd call it in real time, but let's break your question down into two parts:
- Should the ball count as scored?
I would argue no, based on item 3.1.4 Scoring, specifically item A
Quote:
A BALL is considered SCORED in an ALLIANCE’S GOAL if
A. a ROBOT causes one (1) of their ALLIANCE’S BALLS to cross completely and remain completely through the opening(s) of one (1) of their ALLIANCE’S GOALS without intervening TEAM member contact,
B. the ALLIANCE ROBOT last in contact with the BALL was entirely between the TRUSS and their ALLIANCE’S HIGH GOALS, and
C. the BALL is not in contact with any ROBOT from that ALLIANCE.
|
As the robot is not causing their own alliance's ball to go through the goal, it shouldn't count.
- Should this be called as possession?
This one is a more difficult call. G12 reads
Quote:
An ALLIANCE may not POSSESS their opponent’s BALLS. The following criteria define POSSESSION :
A. “carrying” (moving while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT or holding the BALL in or on the ROBOT),
B. “herding” (repeated pushing or bumping),
C. “launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT), or
D. “trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).
|
and the blue box goes on to provide
Quote:
Examples of BALL interaction that are not POSSESSION are
A. “bulldozing” (inadvertently coming in contact with BALLS that happen to be in the path of the ROBOT as it moves about the FIELD) and
B. “deflecting” (a single hit to or being hit by a BALL that bounces or rolls off the ROBOT or a BALL slips through the grips of a ROBOT without arresting the BALL'S momentum).
|
If it's a wacky bounce off an opposing robot into a goal, it might count as bulldozing or deflecting and therefore shouldn't be considered possession. Assuming that it's not an obvious case of carrying or launching, then it becomes a judgement call as to whether it was herding or not.
What my decision process above doesn't cover is a situation where a ball is next to a low goal, an opposing robot decides to try to trap the ball between themselves and the goal (that's a foul), and then a robot shoves into the opposing robot forcing the ball into the goal. It would be a matter of debate whether 3.1.4 A is satisfied, i.e. did the robot cause the ball to enter the goal despite not directly contacting it. As well, what happens if the ball was successfully trussed before being trapped by the opposing team. Then 3.1.4 B wouldn't be satisfied, but it would be if it had contacted the ball on the goal side of the truss.
I'm just one ref, so this is just how I'd make my case to the head ref given the situation posed.