<G09> Dropping Tubes on Your Opponent

[Jimmy Cao]

Hey,

I have a few questions regarding rule G09, as follows:

<G09> POSSESSION - ROBOTS may only have 1 (one) GAME PIECE in their POSSESSION at
any time during the match. Inadvertent bulldozing of GAME PIECES while the ROBOT
moves around the field is allowed. Controlled "herding" of a single GAME PIECE lying on
the floor is permitted as long as no other GAME PIECE is in the POSSESSION of the
ROBOT. Herding of multiple GAME PIECES, or herding of a GAME PIECE on the floor
while in POSSESSION of another GAME PIECE is not permitted (as this would be
considered POSSESSION of more than one GAME PIECE).

What if you were blocking an opposing robot from scoring, and they happened to drop the inner tube onto your robot while you already had one in your possession and the one they dropped on you did not roll off. Would this be considered as being "in possession" of the inner tube?

Thank you.

[Pavan Dave]

Sounds like a YMTD topic to me. I think this it would be counted as possession since the robot now has control of two ringers.

Pavan.

[Imajie]

POSSESSION: a GAME PIECE is considered to be in the POSSESSION of a ROBOT if it is
being fully supported by the ROBOT, or if the ROBOT is controlling the position and movement of
the GAME PIECE. A GAME PIECE on the floor is considered to be in the POSSESSION of a ROBOT
if it contacts the ROBOT at more than a single point (e.g. the ROBOT has a concave
"plow" feature that is used to push the GAME PIECE in a controlled manner).

So could your robot be designed to put the ringers on your opponents, who then receive penalties for possesing more than one ringer?

Edit: I know that this is against FIRST spirit

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by trilogism

So could your robot be designed to put the ringers on your opponents, who then receive penalties for possesing more than one ringer?

That is against the FIRST spirit. I hope that teams do not do this but I think that I will wait until someone asks this question on the FIRST forums and we get a reply from them.

Pavan.

[xrabohrok]

I don't think it will matter. I don't see the refs going "Oh, a robot dropped a tube on your robot, you have 2 tubes, YOUR GOING DOWN!". I wouldn't worry about it. The other guys tube is quite useless to you, you can't score with it or anything.

[KevinH]

This rule deserves clarification at minimum.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by xrabohrok

I don't think it will matter. I don't see the refs going "Oh, a robot dropped a tube on your robot, you have 2 tubes, YOUR GOING DOWN!". I wouldn't worry about it. The other guys tube is quite useless to you, you can't score with it or anything.

The key word is control: If you cannot control the ringer, you don't 'possess' it.
But, this is for FIRST to clarify.

[Imajie]

FIRST defined possession of a tube to be contact with it at more than one point, so you don't NEED to control the tube to possess it.

[RogerR]

Originally Posted by Imajie

FIRST defined possession of a tube to be contact with it at more than one point, so you don't NEED to control the tube to possess it.

can you referance this? i've read though the rules and didn't spot anything relating multiple points of contact to possession; i agree with don rotolo: control is the key to possesion.

[Imajie]

woops. I was reading the on the floor part of possession.
However it does say if the robot is supporting the ring it is possession

POSSESSION: a GAME PIECE is considered to be in the POSSESSION of a ROBOT if it is
being fully supported by the ROBOT, or if the ROBOT is controlling the position and movement of the GAME PIECE. A GAME PIECE on the floor is considered to be in the POSSESSION of a
ROBOT if it contacts the ROBOT at more than a single point (e.g. the ROBOT has a concave
"plow" feature that is used to push the GAME PIECE in a controlled manner)

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by trilogism

So could your robot be designed to put the ringers on your opponents, who then receive penalties for possesing more than one ringer?

Edit: I know that this is against FIRST spirit

I would consider a robot like this can be violating the rule of robots that can't be built for the destruction of other robots.

I would think and hope the refs would understand if a ring accedently falls on your robot and you can't remove it.

[Noah Kleinberg]

Originally Posted by Lostmage333

Hey,

I have a few questions regarding rule G09, as follows:

<G09> POSSESSION - ROBOTS may only have 1 (one) GAME PIECE in their POSSESSION at
any time during the match. Inadvertent bulldozing of GAME PIECES while the ROBOT
moves around the field is allowed. Controlled "herding" of a single GAME PIECE lying on
the floor is permitted as long as no other GAME PIECE is in the POSSESSION of the
ROBOT. Herding of multiple GAME PIECES, or herding of a GAME PIECE on the floor
while in POSSESSION of another GAME PIECE is not permitted (as this would be
considered POSSESSION of more than one GAME PIECE).

What if you were blocking an opposing robot from scoring, and they happened to drop the inner tube onto your robot while you already had one in your possession and the one they dropped on you did not roll off. Would this be considered as being "in possession" of the inner tube?

Thank you.

Technically yes, but it should probably go to the FIRST Q&A. Obviously this is not the reason for the rule, so it's possible that they'll change it to allow for this. Designing a robot to put ringers on your opponents is legal under the current rules, but is against the spirit of the rules in my opinion.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't see that Pavan responded first.

[jgannon]

Is there a general rule for determining the penalty for violating a rule when it isn't explicitly given, such as <G09>? It is "not permitted", but what happens if it does? 10 points? Disable? DQ? Break the coach's kneecaps? (Please don't.) I tend to assume that things that aren't labelled as a DQ are 10-point penalties, but I don't see anything that indicates that this is the case.

[xenicator]

I seem to recall the word "innovation" prominent in the acronym of FIRST. Creativity in interpreting the rules where no robot is being harmed seems, on the contrary, to be IN the spirit of FIRST. I have noticed that Gracious Professionalism has started to be increasingly used to discourage innovation rather than maliciousness. Is it ungracious to hope that there is a slight loophole in the rules which makes this game based on technology rather than simply driver control and quickness of wit? Without these loopholes what is this game but another sporting event, something that is opposing the spirit of FIRST and promoting the “Rich and Famous” as an ideal lifestyle rather than commitment and hard work.