Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBot
I was checking out the video to see what the red card fuss was about..... and noticed some interesting footage at 56:10.
1114 has the ball, and gets tipped up from the side.
Is it my imagination, or does the ball go up with them?
If so, isn't that a clear case of ball posession (Carrying), and not an accidental one... their mechanism would tend to appear to firmly hold onto that ball (dual roller system maybe).
Clearly it's effective.... but doesn't <G44> outlaw this sort of mechanism...
We just competed at Chesapeake, and so I know that inspection didn't include a demonstration of ball handling, so when should this sort of <G44> thing get picked up and corrected?
(I mean, if it's permitted, I want one!)
|
When on level ground, 1114's mechanism is designed to keep the ball on the floor - it is even spring loaded to apply additional downforce.
However, much like as we witnessed in the 148 promo video earlier in the year, where 148 clearly could use their ball magnet to carry the ball into the goal before release during herding, this is an example, in my opinion, of a situation which warrants further analysis.
The defending robot was not doing anything special to interact with 1114 (getting underneath them, etc.). It was simple bumper zone contact, and 1114 clearly lifted the ball off the ground during it. However, in speaking with a few in the know, according to the head ref, this situation fell under the "another robot cannot cause a robot to get a penalty" situation. I can understand this viewpoint - if the defense weren't there, the ball would not have left the ground. However, I can also understand the view of those who might claim that a "legal" ball control device is one that releases the ball when the robot loses normal contact with the ground. Not an easy question - one which only the GDC could answer. Further debate here is pointless. People know where to go to get official rulings on such matters.
There can be no doubt that such systems have the potential to carry the ball during certain game situations. The 148 video and the 1114 video indicate several situations that should be closely monitored. The question is whether the GDC defines the normal operation of the ball magnet on flat ground as "carrying". I'm thinking, not at all; otherwise, these robots would not be competing.
My opinion? The systems should be deemed legal to operate on flat ground (and they DO, in fact, operate legally), but the teams should be held accountable (2 penalties via <G44>) for carrying whenever they so obviously lift the ball off the ground during rapid change in direction, aggressive driving, interaction with a field surface, goal incursion, or any other similar maneuvers. It would be prudent for referees to pay attention to any and all extremely effective "ball magnet" robots during such situations to ensure the rules are being effectively enforced.
Finally, I do think the video situation points out something else - drivers have to be careful in avoiding kicking the ball out of bounds, as intentional attempts to do so are penalizable offenses. 1114's kick was angled well away from the long axis of the field - there could be no expectation of scoring a goal at that moment, and if I'm not mistaken, the ball shot into the crowd, a definite safety concern. Accidental or otherwise, refs would be prudent to watch out for and enforce <G19> more stringently the rest of the way.