Go to Post Safety is a practice, not a number. - Alan Anderson [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 13-01-2014, 15:32
Nuttyman54's Avatar
Nuttyman54 Nuttyman54 is offline
Mentor, Tactician
AKA: Evan "Numbers" Morrison
FRC #5803 (Apex Robotics) and FRC #0971 (Spartan Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Seattle, WA/Mountain View, CA
Posts: 2,134
Nuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Nuttyman54
Re: Can an immobile robot POSSESS a BALL?

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

Quote:
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.
__________________
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:56.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi