Quote:
Originally Posted by rich2202
I was an inspector 2 weeks ago, and asked a ref about when does bulldozing constitute possession? She said they had a standard, but could not disclose it. I'm guessing it is the same for pinning. I'll be Ref'ing this weekend, and will be interested in what they tell us.
From what I see in the video from a distance, I am not sure if I would have called it a possession, unless I was told in advance.. By the same token, I might not have called it a possession foul either. IMHO, you really have to hold the ball more than a fraction of a second. The ones I am more worried about are: Bot is running across the field, and hits the opponent's ball. When is that intentional?
|
Possession <a-b>, to include herding, have nothing at all to do with intention.
“carrying” (moving while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT or holding the BALL in or on the ROBOT),
“herding” (repeated pushing or bumping),
Technically <c-d> do reference non-physical criteria. Launch direction is "desired", though in practice I don't know of anything action that's met other G12c requirements and failed on "desired". Similarly trapping technically has a non-physical component, as it is "in an attempt to shield...", As A452 shows though, it hasn't been called purely that way, at least in recent weeks. (Side note: very frustrating, both for inconsistency in low goal possessions and the originally ruled-out viability of offensive traps like pandamonium's "touch and go", which we would've gladly designed for had it been described as legal during build.)
“launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT), or
“trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).
Intention also comes into play in deciding the foul now, though there's another inconsistency zone for intentional+inconsequential, depending on how it's read.
Violation: FOUL, if unintentional and inconsequential (i.e. does not significantly impact MATCH play). TECHNICAL FOUL per consequential instance. TECHNICAL FOUL per extended instance. If strategic, RED CARD for the ALLIANCE.
Finally, intention is associated with advertency of bulldozing. (More inconsistency on whether these are identical--can one be attentive and advertent that they're bulldozing without it being intentional?) This is a lesser issue though, because deflecting has no positive or negative intention requirement.
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).
What you're describing as being worried about is deflection, which is not possession regardless of intent.
Re: 3rd assist high goal lights. Yes, the lag is terrible between the panels and the lights. You've really got to go by score. I've also seen it miss a last-minute possession entered by the far side ref while the near side hits end cycle. We have to fix this post-match.