Can an immobile robot POSSESS a BALL?

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by JB987

From Merriam-Webster dictionary...

1car·ry verb \ˈka-rē, ˈker-ē\
: to move (something) while holding and supporting it

: to contain and direct the flow of (water, electricity, etc.)

: to have (something) with you or on your body

Looks like one could apply either of the last two definitions to argue even a stationary robot could be "carrying" the ball if it is an "etcetera".

Except we don't use the dictionary definition, we use the definition given in the manual. (Quoted in the post just above yours.)

[JB987]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Except we don't use the dictionary definition, we use the definition given in the manual. (Quoted in the post just above yours.)

Point taken

[DonRotolo]

I was taking Immboile to mean "not moving", including not being able to move (e.g., launch). As in disabled, or loose battery connector, or dead cRio, or bad radio, or...

[Nuttyman54]

I would say yes, an immobile robot can possess a ball via trapping.

Originally Posted by FRC Manual

POSSESS: (for a ROBOT) to carry (move while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT), herd (repeated pushing or bumping), launch (impel BALLS to a desired location or direction), or trap (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them) a BALL.

Emphasis mine.

If Redabot 1 is immobile on the field, and Redabot 2 pushes a ball between the two of them such that the ball is pinned between both robots and unable to move, and neither robot has sole possession (that is, if either robot were to suddenly disappear, the ball would be free to move around), I would argue that the ball is trapped, per the definition of POSSESSION.

Because both robots are part of the trap, possession must be awarded to both robots simultaneously. The trap (and therefore possession) does not exist without the presence of BOTH robots.

Redabot 2 could even back up slightly, releasing the ball before retaking control of it to demonstrate that Redabot 1 was an integral part of the trap.

Whether or not the refs will call it this way remains to be seen, but I don't see a good argument for why this shouldn't be a trap.

[gpetilli]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I would say yes, an immobile robot can possess a ball via trapping.



Emphasis mine.

If Redabot 1 is immobile on the field, and Redabot 2 pushes a ball between the two of them such that the ball is pinned between both robots and unable to move, and neither robot has sole possession (that is, if either robot were to suddenly disappear, the ball would be free to move around), I would argue that the ball is trapped, per the definition of POSSESSION.

Because both robots are part of the trap, possession must be awarded to both robots simultaneously. The trap (and therefore possession) does not exist without the presence of BOTH robots.

Redabot 2 could even back up slightly, releasing the ball before retaking control of it to demonstrate that Redabot 1 was an integral part of the trap.

Whether or not the refs will call it this way remains to be seen, but I don't see a good argument for why this shouldn't be a trap.

sounds like "overt isolation" and clearly not in the spirit of gratuitous professionalism

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by gpetilli

sounds like "overt isolation" and clearly not in the spirit of gratuitous professionalism

I'm confused as to why you think this is not graciously professional? Both robots are from the same alliance, and one robot is immobile (radio problems, cRIO reset, dead battery, etc). They are serving a useful function to their alliance and helping to score points simply by being on the field, even though their robot is non-functional. That's more than can be said for a dead robot in almost every other game.

[gpetilli]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I'm confused as to why you think this is not graciously professional? Both robots are from the same alliance, and one robot is immobile (radio problems, cRIO reset, dead battery, etc). They are serving a useful function to their alliance and helping to score points simply by being on the field, even though their robot is non-functional. That's more than can be said for a dead robot in almost every other game.

Im sorry, I misinterpreted the scenario. That would be a great use for a dead bot, but I don't think the refs will give it the assist. I hope I am wrong.

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

I was taking Immboile to mean "not moving", including not being able to move (e.g., launch). As in disabled, or loose battery connector, or dead cRio, or bad radio, or...

Check team update from 1/10/2014

http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/Updates/0#term 147

If an ALLIANCE’s BALL becomes stuck in an ALLIANCE’S ROBOT, the ALLIANCE may signal to the Head Referee that the BALL is “dead” (specifics regarding the signaling process are yet to be determined). At this point, the Head Referee will suspend the CYCLE (TRUSS and CATCH points are maintained, ASSIST accruals are voided) and re-illuminate the PEDESTAL, beginning another CYCLE for that ALLIANCE. If the dead BALL is freed, that BALL must be removed from the FIELD through one of the ALLIANCE’S GOALS or by passing to an ALLIANCE HUMAN PLAYER before the ALLIANCE can earn any more points. Each ALLIANCE is allowed to indicate one (1) BALL as “dead” per MATCH.

If an ALLIANCE’S BALL becomes stuck in an opposing ALLIANCE’S ROBOT, the Head Referee will signal an extended infraction of G12 (the assumption is that the ALLIANCE has already been penalized for the initial G12 infraction). At this point, the Head Referee will suspend the current CYCLE and re-illuminate the PEDESTAL, beginning another CYCLE for that ALLIANCE. If the stuck BALL is freed, that ball will be considered FIELD debris.

My guess is that a dead or immobile robot would fall under this ruling....