G12 Update clarification

[Qcom]

G12
An ALLIANCE may not POSSESS their opponent’s BALLS. The following criteria define POSSESSION :

“carrying” (moving while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT),
“herding” (repeated pushing or bumping),
“launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction), and
“trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL per instance. If extended, another TECHNICAL FOUL. If strategic, RED CARD for the ALLIANCE.

How is an opposing alliance going to "Strategically" possess an opponents ball? What separates this from anything else intentional?

[PVCpirate]

Examples as I interpret it:

Regular violation:

• Launching or herding the ball
• Trapping or carrying for a short time, ball is then freed

Extended:

• Herding a long way, like across the field
• A ball gets unintentionally stuck in a robot, unable to free ball
• Ball is trapped for an extended period of time, judged by ref

Strategic:

• Grab opponents ball and hold it for a long time
• Intentionally trap the ball in a corner for a long time
• Posess the ball, pass to alliance partner, they also posess it

[Qcom]

Originally Posted by PVCpirate

Examples as I interpret it:

Regular violation:

• Launching or herding the ball
• Trapping or carrying for a short time, ball is then freed

Extended:

• Herding a long way, like across the field
• A ball gets unintentionally stuck in a robot, unable to free ball
• Ball is trapped for an extended period of time, judged by ref

Strategic:

• Grab opponents ball and hold it for a long time
• Intentionally trap the ball in a corner for a long time
• Possess the ball, pass to alliance partner, they also possess it

Ahh, so Strategic is almost like a double-extended violation.

[Zuelu562]

I see strategic as playing keep away. Keep it in your bot so they can't score. Turns out they do. STOP THAT!

[RRLedford]

This still does not clarify whether positioning lower goal blocking robot extensions sufficiently across (but outside) their faces, and then leaving them statically positioned while an opponent tries to score the ball past them, would be considered a defensive trapping violation.

If the defensive blocker remains static, the ball's contact with their defensive elements is 100% initiated by the offense bot's pushing of the ball, so IMO it should not be a trapping foul.

If it is not a foul, then many bots will be able to easily prevent any balls being scored at a lower goal with minimum deployment(s) of lower goal blocking elements. It will also raise another concern for when a goal blocking element might be deformed by the ball pushing against it to point of passing inside the plane of the goal face. Since the offensive bot would be causing it to happen, it should not be a foul, but what if ball then gets wedged against inside of goal, against a deformed blocking element such that ball cannot pass further inward or be pull back outward.

That would put scoring on permanent hold for the offensive team, yet it would seem they caused their own demise by trying to force the ball past the goal blocking element. Yet the defender may have intentionally designed their blocking elements to specifically cause this kind of a result.

-Dick Ledford

[Zuelu562]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

This still does not clarify whether positioning lower goal blocking robot extensions sufficiently across (but outside) their faces, and then leaving them statically positioned while an opponent tries to score the ball past them, would be considered a defensive trapping violation.

If the defensive blocker remains static, the contact with them is 100% initiated by the office bot, so IMO it should not be a trapping foul.

If it is not a foul, then many bots will be able to easily prevent any balls being scored at a lower goal with minimum deployment of of lower goal blocking elements.

-Dick Ledford

I feel this is completely legal. The tradeoff is not being able to block both low goals at once (unless you have 2 robots doing this....) and without proper design, the ball will almost instantly go into the low goal the second the defensive mechanism is retracted if the ball is stuck upon the mechanism.

My question is, if the ball is on your mechanism or you attempt to move with an opponent's ball stuck in between your defensive extension and the wall and the ball travels with you, is it possession?

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by Qcom

Ahh, so Strategic is almost like a double-extended violation.

That's not quite what I meant. Basically there are two things that must happen for me to consider it strategic. First, it must be intentional, which I think everyone is pretty clear on. Second, the team or teams involved must not attempt to correct the situation, making it apparent that they are trying to prevent the other team from scoring by keeping the ball away.

Originally Posted by RRLedford

This still does not clarify whether positioning lower goal blocking robot extensions sufficiently across (but outside) their faces, and then leaving them statically positioned while an opponent tries to score the ball past them, would be considered a defensive trapping violation.

If the defensive blocker remains static, the contact with them is 100% initiated by the office bot, so IMO it should not be a trapping foul.

If it is not a foul, then many bots will be able to easily prevent any balls being scored at a lower goal with minimum deployment of of lower goal blocking elements.

-Dick Ledford

As the rules are right now, a single robot doing this on one goal would not be penalized. This is not much of a problem since there are two goals. However, if two robots block both goals, I'm pretty sure it would be a violation of G25 and a technical foul.

[wilhitern1]

Originally Posted by Zuelu562

I see strategic as playing keep away. Keep it in your bot so they can't score. Turns out they do. STOP THAT!

If the ref thinks you are doing it intentionally, then it is strategic.

Neal

[Zuelu562]

Originally Posted by wilhitern1

If the ref thinks you are doing it intentionally, then it is strategic.

Neal

I wish text (and my writing skills ) was a better medium for conveying humor.

"Well, we can keep the ball in our robot and prevent them from scoring right?"
"uh....turns out they can still score"

Possessing their ball is bad. Intentionally possessing their ball is worse. Intentionally possessing their ball as a strategy is NOT SMART.

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

If it is not a foul, then many bots will be able to easily prevent any balls being scored at a lower goal with minimum deployment(s) of lower goal blocking elements. It will also raise another concern for when a goal blocking element might be deformed by the ball pushing against it to point of passing inside the plane of the goal face. Since the offensive bot would be causing it to happen, it should not be a foul, but what if ball then gets wedged against inside of goal, against a deformed blocking element such that ball cannot pass further inward or be pull back outward.

That would put scoring on permanent hold for the offensive team, yet it would seem they caused their own demise by trying to force the ball past the goal blocking element. Yet the defender may have intentionally designed their blocking elements to specifically cause this kind of a result.

-Dick Ledford

(Emphasis Mine)

I think in the situation you described here, the defending team has caused the ball to be stuck in the goal. This would not be the fault of the offensive team, they are just trying to score. If I were a ref(which I'm not), I would probably call trapping here. The ball is "trapped" inside the goal, and this situation is being caused by the defensive team. Additionally, if the defender is unable to pull free, they could be subject to an additional technical foul and/or red card.

[Brandon Ha]

The easiest way to determine possession is if that drive team changed directions to impact the ball. Or went OUT OF HIS WAY to get to the ball.
Strategically speaking a team might not be fouled for a possession once, but this is not the only time they are seeing you. You should get a good idea of what the robot will be capable of doing by the second match. So if the refs think this is the second time they have seen that same idea it might turn on some ideas.