Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonmw04
.... they did two 90 degree turns and the goal stayed in roughly the same position, I would have to say they should have earned a penalty for this.
Clearly, the Refs decided it wasn't so in that match/regional it wasn't. Have other regionals been run with such a loss definition of "possession"? Have others been run with a more "letter of the law" approach? Has this been clarified?
|
3539 has been in at least one other event (a PA qualifier with one of the game designers in attendance) without being called for a "possession" violation, as far as I am aware. From the video, it seems that they keep the goal inside a "cave" in the robot, but the "cave door" is always open, at least until the end game.
The answer to your last sentence may depend on your definition of clarified, but the topic of goal possession has certainly been addressed in the official Q&A in the Game Definitions thread:
From post #5 (
http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post128)
[Answer] The ability to "posses" a Rolling Goal will not be something that the inspection process will test.
The referees will assess possession dynamically, on the field. The referees will be watching for situations that, in their opinion, represent control of all directions of motion of the Rolling Goal.
One way to understand is to visualize the following tests. If a robot can be pushed or pulled away from the Rolling Goal, while still in contact with the playing field surface, without causing the Rolling Goal to come away with the robot, the robot is not in possession of the Rolling Goal. Conversely, if the Rolling Goal can be pulled away similarly, without cause the robot to move/come away with the Rolling Goal, the Rolling Goal was not possessed.
From Post #7 (
http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post136)
[Answer] [This] is the test that the referees will use when assessing possession ...
i.e. is there a way to pull either the robot or the goal, without lifting either, that cause them to come away from each other freely.
From post #9 (
http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post138)
[Answer] ... if there is a way to visualize pulling away either the rolling goal or the robot, without lifting either, and have them come away from each other cleanly, the goal is not in the possession of the robot.
From post #15 (
http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post261)
[Question] Ruling #7 above uses the term "freely" and ruling #9 uses the term "cleanly" when describing how the robot and moving goal are pulled away. Can you confirm that so long as the robot and rolling goal can be pulled away from each other, with or without friction between them that the goal is not possessed?
A: Yes, it is confirmed.
From post #16 (
http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post297)
As long as the robot grasping the Baton does not use it to pull/push the Rolling Goal and releases it to finish the scoring activity, the robot would not be in possession of the Rolling Goal....
From post # 17 (
http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post366)
[Question] Does the "push" or "pull" mentioned in the above statement [in Post #5] have to be in a straight line? If not, can it include a dog leg or other sharp bend?
[Answer] It is not possible for us to rule on every possible form of possession. The test described in earlier posts is one method for assessing possession.
The final determination of possession will be made by the referees at the field, based on the situation at the time the call is made.
From post#23 (
http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post496)
. . . Rolling Goal and Baton possession is clearly defined and will be interpreted appropriately by the referees. The Head Referee will be trained and certified for each of the competitions and will train his/her referees as well.
If the Rolling Goals or Batons are contained and controlled on all sides by a robot at any time they will be considered "possessed". A robot that has the appearance of possessing the rolling goal will be watched closely by the referees, so please be careful in your designs....
From post #24 (
http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post496)
The attached diagram of examples possession scenarios is a taken from the referee training materials and demonstrates the principals that apply to Rolling Goal possession. It is not an enumeration of all of the possible legal configurations.
Be aware, even if the Rolling Goal is only constrained on three sides, if there is excessive friction that holds/squeezes the Rolling Goal, the robot would still be in violation of the possession rule.
From post #25 (
http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post626)
[Question] You say "if there is excessive friction." What constitutes "excessive friction"? Would something that allows the goal to be pulled out, but doesn't allow the goal to roll out freely be allowed?
[Answer]This will be a judgement call by the referee. In general, the Rolling Goal must roll out freely. Robot designs that may cause the Rolling Goal to bind, stick, become wedged, trapped, etc. risk violating the possession rule and should be avoided.
From post #26 (
http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/showthre...full=1#post839)
[Question] Ruling #7, #9, and #15 affirm that the pull test is the primary method of determining goal possession. For clarity, is the pull test still satisfied when the rolling goal freely separates from the robot by changing directions two times? Keep in mind that in this situation the rolling goal is still removed cleanly without moving the robot. Ex. The rolling goal is constrained on three sides and the fourth side has a tab with a remaining opening larger than the rolling goal such that it rolls out freely.
A: No, this is not allowed. The robot or rolling goal must be pulled on a single vector. The fourth side tab should fail inspection.
Based on these answers from the official forum, I would say that the Game Manual version of the definition of possession is gone, and the pull test is in its place. Teams relying on the Game Manual alone will likely be suprised by what is allowed. Post 17 is overruled by 26 (to avoid possession, the goal must be able to roll out in a straight line). The one issue that still seems unclear is whether or not the inspection process will include an assessment of the legality of goal managing mechanisms under the possession rule.