Quote:
Originally Posted by normalmutant
we pass the pull test but don't quite fit the definition.
|
The problem with the definition and forum posts may be more obvious for your robot than for others, but the problem is there for any robot, because the problem is in the definitions, not the robots.
The definition in section 2.3 of the manual goes like this:
Possess / Possessing a Rolling Goal- Controlling the position and movement of a ROLLING GOAL. A ROLLING GOAL shall be considered in POSSESSION if, as the ROBOT moves or changes orientation (e.g. backs up or spins in place), the ROLLING GOAL remains in approximately the same position relative to the robot.
The short version of this definition apparently is that "possession" is "controlling the position and movement of a ROLLING GOAL." Every robot capable of controlled movement is capable of possession by that standard, such as in the case of a short, straight-line push of the goal.
The longer version says that the goal is considered possessed if the goal remains in approximately the same position relative to the robot as the robot moves OR changes orientation (with backing up and spinning given as examples of moving and of changing orientation, respectively). If you read this literally, all you need is one linear move, such as a short, straight-line push, OR one spin, where the goal remains in approximately the same position relative to the robot, and you are possessing the goal during that move.
This is pretty obviously not what was intended, even without the forum posts, moreover, the pull test in the forum responses cannot be harmonized with any literal reading of these definitions from the manual.
Ideally, the manual would be revised to reflect the forum posts, rather than be left as-is, to mislead teams and officials alike.