Team Update 1-14-2014

[mott]

This clarification eliminates the possibility of a robot "Catching" their own truss toss then passing the ball to a partner (before touching the carpet) to earn the Catch bonus.

No surprise here...

[SenorZ]

Though it doesn't say it can't touch an opposing alliance member... does that seem valid?
Blue1 passes over TRUSS, it bounces off Red1 and into Blue2's possession, without ever touching the carpet. Does that count as a CATCH?

[GaryVoshol]

Good thing they did that, because there was a discontinuity between an earlier Q&A that said the throwing robot couldn't catch it first, and the rule that didn't prohibit it until now.

[Henrique Schmit]

Isn't R26 prohibiting West Coast drive trains?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Henrique Schmit

Isn't R26 prohibiting West Coast drive trains?

Nope. Most WCDs have wheels smaller than 8"; 4" is typical.

[Henrique Schmit]

Originally Posted by EricH

Nope. Most WCDs have wheels smaller than 8"; 4" is typical.

yeah, but the gap would be deeper than 1/4 in

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Henrique Schmit

yeah, but the gap would be deeper than 1/4 in

That's an OR in R26, not an AND. So the gap must not be greater than 1/4" deep OR 8" wide. Also reference Figure 4-10.

Translation: if you have a gap that is BOTH deeper than 1/4" AND wider than 8", you have a problem. Otherwise, you should be OK.

[Henrique Schmit]

Originally Posted by EricH

That's an OR in R26, not an AND. So the gap must not be greater than 1/4" deep OR 8" wide. Also reference Figure 4-10.

Translation: if you have a gap that is BOTH deeper than 1/4" AND wider than 8", you have a problem. Otherwise, you should be OK.

now that i've seen the image i understand what you're saying, it must be wider and deeper, yet the rule says wider or deeper they should change either the image or the rule

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Henrique Schmit

now that i've seen the image i understand what you're saying, it must be wider and deeper, yet the rule says wider or deeper they should change either the image or the rule

Yep, and they changed AWAY from that very wording! C'mon, GDC!

[magnets]

The text "CATCH: the event when a BALL SCORED over the TRUSS by a ROBOT’S ALLIANCE partner is POSSESSED by that ROBOT before contacting the carpet, the ROBOT which SCORED the TRUSS, or a HUMAN PLAYER."
can mean two things

1.) a catch is when a "BALL SCORED over the TRUSS by a ROBOT'S ALLIANCE partner is POSSESSED by"

a.) "that ROBOT before contacting the carpet"
b.) "the ROBOT which SCORED the TRUSS"
c.) "or a HUMAN PLAYER"
---------------------------
2.) a catch is when a "BALL SCORED over the TRUSS by a ROBOT’S ALLIANCE partner is POSSESSED by that ROBOT before contacting the"

a.) "carpet"
b.)"the ROBOT which SCORED the TRUSS"
c.) "or a HUMAN PLAYER"

Two is more likely, but it's still really ambiguous.

[PAR_WIG1350]

Originally Posted by magnets

The text "CATCH: the event when a BALL SCORED over the TRUSS by a ROBOT’S ALLIANCE partner is POSSESSED by that ROBOT before contacting the carpet, the ROBOT which SCORED the TRUSS, or a HUMAN PLAYER."
can mean two things

1.) a catch is when a "BALL SCORED over the TRUSS by a ROBOT'S ALLIANCE partner is POSSESSED by"

a.) "that ROBOT before contacting the carpet"
b.) "the ROBOT which SCORED the TRUSS"
c.) "or a HUMAN PLAYER"
---------------------------
2.) a catch is when a "BALL SCORED over the TRUSS by a ROBOT’S ALLIANCE partner is POSSESSED by that ROBOT before contacting the"

a.) "carpet"
b.)"the ROBOT which SCORED the TRUSS"
c.) "or a HUMAN PLAYER"

Two is more likely, but it's still really ambiguous.

Since 1b and 1c would allow for a CATCH to be awarded regardless of whether or not the BALL had touched the carpet, which is logically not how this is supposed to work, I believe option 2 is likely what they meant. It would be clearer if they had put the word "either" after the word "contacting", but they didn't. They probably figured that we would realize that the BALL is no longer eligible for CATCH points once it contacted the ground, thus eliminating interpretation 1 as an option.

EDIT: If grammar and syntax rules are relaxed there is actually at least one more possible interpretation:
3.) a catch is when a "BALL SCORED over the TRUSS by a ROBOT'S ALLIANCE partner is POSSESSED by that ROBOT before contacting"

-a.) "the carpet"
-b.) "the ROBOT which SCORED"
---i.) "the TRUSS or"
---ii.) "a HUMAN PLAYER"

However this can logically be ruled out given that one cannot (legally) SCORE a HUMAN PLAYER .

[magnets]

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350

3.) a catch is when a "BALL SCORED over the TRUSS by a ROBOT'S ALLIANCE partner is POSSESSED by that ROBOT before contacting"

-a.) "the carpet"
-b.) "the ROBOT which SCORED"
---i.) "the TRUSS or"
---ii.) "a HUMAN PLAYER"

However this can logically be ruled out given that one cannot (legally) SCORE a HUMAN PLAYER .

I can't wait until a team builds a human-player-throwing-robot!