View Single Post
  #67   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-03-2010, 17:15
martin417's Avatar
martin417 martin417 is offline
Opinionated old goat
AKA: Martin Wilson
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Buford, GA
Posts: 720
martin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2010 Pittsburgh Regional

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBot View Post
...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...
I am continually amazed at the differing interpretation of rules that appear crystal clear (not all the rules this year meet that criteria, but the ball handling rule does) There is nothing in the rules that prohibit "firmly holding onto the ball". The rule only prohibits lifting the ball from floor contact while "firmly holding onto" it. Our vacuum gripper was fully capable of holding the ball off the floor if the bot was lifted up. In fact, we received a penalty for doing so. somehow, when we were trying to acquire against the hump, the ball got lodged in between the vacuum cups and our bumper. It was clear that we were carrying, and we got a penalty for it. We still don't know how it happened, and we couldn't reproduce it in the pits.

At any rate, since an opposing bot cannot cause you to get a penalty, and you only carried because an opposing bot lifted you up or forced you be lifted up, no penalty.
__________________
Former Mentor Team 1771
Former mentor Team 4509