[FTC]: Extent of Possession

[AGCAndrey]

The Rule Definitions state that Possession is:
"Controlling the position and movement of a Ring. A Ring shall be considered in Possession if, as the Robot moves or changes orientation (e.g. backs up or spins in place), the Ring remains in approximately the same position relative to the Robot. Rings in Possession by a Robot are considered to be part of the Robot."

The question is: When dispensing Rings, could a robot move more than two Rings while still on the Dispenser (Gathering only two) or would the movement of the Rings while still on the Dispenser count as Possession? (i.e: A manipulator moves all of the Rings but only 2 Rings come off of the Dispenser.)

[MattRain]

This question has come up on the offical fourms.

Originally Posted by FTC6043

Q: If a robot was in possession of the ring at the back of a full dispenser, and in the process of removing it, the other 5 rings were pushed off the dispenser (generally moving with the robot, but fully supported by the dispenser) until they fell off the dispenser and to the floor, would that be a violation of <GR2>?
A: The action described doesn't violate rule <GR2>. Rings that are fully supported by the Dispenser are not subject to the Possession rule <GR2>.

[RRLedford]

This clarification is still vague.
It focuses too much concept "fully supported."

What if, driving, my bot bashes onto the row of dispenser rings and possess only the outer two but my inner ring grip element plows under the third ring enough to slightly elevate it off the PVC pipe. Am I now possessing three?

Even though reversing the bot would release the third ring and it would drop back down on the pipe.

Does the same rule concept for possession while rolling on the floor & touching/moving rings apply to the dispenser and the scoring rack?

Meaning that pushing, moving, touching, and elevating rings on the dispenser and scoring pipes will only be considered possession if a different direction movement of the bot or bot mechanism will not cause the touched 3rd ring to follow along with that motion.

So if my ring gathering element presses up against the 3tird ring as it controls the outer two rings, but a reverse motion of what initiated the pressing against the third ring leaves it hanging on the PVC pipe and not following the bot in any way, then hopefully this is legal? If not most teams will be getting penalties.

Where it becomes vague is when the bot may go too far onto the dispenser and overshoot the outer ring, instead gripping only the 2nd and 3rd rings, but the first one still hanging free outside them. Now, if the bot retracts from the dispenser, three rings will be moved off the pipe.

So even if the outer ring just falls to the floor, will the pushing of it allong with the other two be a penalty?
-Dick Ledford

[VashonRobotics]

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems clear to me that the rule is mainly to prevent bots from collecting and scoring more than two rings at a time. I seriously doubt that a team would incur a penalty if they were to cause all the rings from their dispenser to drop onto the floor just as they came off the dispenser. I think a team would be in trouble if they were to grab more than two rings off their dispenser and then do a 180 and then drop them on the floor. That would be possessing more than two.

I figure the possession language is also to discourage “U” shaped bulldozer forms on a bot gathering and pushing a pile of rings on the floor taking them out of play as a defensive strategy. Besides, too much defensive play makes for a very boring game for the spectators!