Team Update 1-17-2014

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Jeffy

Possessing the opponents ball is still prohibited. Care to explain your thoughts?

I believe the concern was that attempting to deflect an opponents ball (ie a single bump on the ball that sent it in a new, likely desired, direction) could be considered launching and earn a penalty via g12. This update makes it clear that getting in the way like that is legal and does not incur a penalty.

[Mr. Van]

So, if you catch an opponents ball (by mistake - not through any intent on either alliance's part), then you incur a penalty if you keep it, and you incur a penalty if you kick it out of your robot?

Seems to provide a powerful deterrent to an open-topped passive catching design.

Do I have this correct?

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

So, if you catch an opponents ball (by mistake - not through any intent on either alliance's part), then you incur a penalty if you keep it, and you incur a penalty if you kick it out of your robot?

Seems to provide a powerful deterrent to an open-topped passive catching design.

Do I have this correct?

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

That's the way I always understood the rule, and the update doesn't seem to have changed that.

[markmcgary]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

That's the way I always understood the rule, and the update doesn't seem to have changed that.

I think this update further clarifies POSSESSION as:

“launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT)

So, now there is no doubt that if an opponent ball accidentally landed in your robot and you use a mechanism to remove the ball, you can be penalized.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by markmcgary

I think this update further clarifies POSSESSION as:



So, now there is no doubt that if an opponent ball accidentally landed in your robot and you use a mechanism to remove the ball, you can be penalized.

Technically there is still a loop hole. If you catch the opposing alliance's ball and don't move you have not technically possessed the ball according to the definition.

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

Technically there is still a loop hole. If you catch the opposing alliance's ball and don't move you have not technically possessed the ball according to the definition.

Incorrect. You are "Trapping" the ball

“trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).

[dodar]

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296

Incorrect. You are "Trapping" the ball

Wrong. If an opponents ball lands in your robot and you stop moving and you were not purposefully catching the ball, then you are not shielding the ball purposefully from the other alliance.

If the other alliance's ball happens to land inside your robot and it was inadvertent, if you stop moving immediately then it would seem that you would not be penalized.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by dodar

Wrong. If an opponents ball lands in your robot and you stop moving and you were not purposefully catching the ball, then you are not shielding the ball purposefully from the other alliance.

If the other alliance's ball happens to land inside your robot and it was inadvertent, if you stop moving immediately then it would seem that you would not be penalized.

Agreed, I would not consider a ball inside of your robot as trapping. But, I would also not consider this the intent, or even a strategy that should be implemented in any way.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by dodar

Wrong. If an opponents ball lands in your robot and you stop moving and you were not purposefully catching the ball, then you are not shielding the ball purposefully from the other alliance.

If the other alliance's ball happens to land inside your robot and it was inadvertent, if you stop moving immediately then it would seem that you would not be penalized.

As the rules are written, I believe you're right.

That being said, I highly doubt the call will be this cut and dry. If you catch a ball, put your hands up in the air, and make it clear to the refs that you did not intend to do it, and you don't want to actively release it, then what happens? Do you sit there for the rest of the match as a black hole? Does the Head Ref make the call to put another ball into play as if your robot died with a ball in it? It's an interesting (and annoying) situation to think about for sure.

If anything, there needs to be some sort of grace period for an unintentional catch, where a machine is given some reasonable amount of time (say 5-10 seconds) to get the ball out of their robot without being penalized - although even that isn't that simple. On paper, there are certain situations where it may make sense for a team to build a human load only machine, where the only method of releasing the ball they have is a truss or goal shot - at that point, does them shooting the ball (where ever) turn an accident into a strategic advantage? Teams with intakes or other methods of doing a 'slow' and or 'controlled' ball release wouldn't really be an issue here, since they could essentially drop the ball where it was caught and carry on with the match.

[indubitably]

Originally Posted by dodar

Wrong. If an opponents ball lands in your robot and you stop moving and you were not purposefully catching the ball, then you are not shielding the ball purposefully from the other alliance.

If the other alliance's ball happens to land inside your robot and it was inadvertent, if you stop moving immediately then it would seem that you would not be penalized.

From G12:

A BALL that becomes unintentionally lodged on a ROBOT will be considered POSSESSED by the ROBOT. It is important to design your ROBOT so that it is impossible to inadvertently or intentionally POSSESS an opponent’s BALL.

Since possession, specifically trapping, can be defined as overt isolation, you would be penalized for inadvertently catching the ball and stopping.

[Sparky3D]

Originally Posted by dodar

Wrong. If an opponents ball lands in your robot and you stop moving and you were not purposefully catching the ball, then you are not shielding the ball purposefully from the other alliance.

If the other alliance's ball happens to land inside your robot and it was inadvertent, if you stop moving immediately then it would seem that you would not be penalized.

I'd recommend taking a really close look at the definition of trapping:

“trapping” (overt isolation OR holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them). -emphasis on the first OR is mine

The way I read that rule, overt isolation of the opponents ball is trapping; and catching it and leaving it inside your robot would be pretty "overt isolation".

Just my $0.02

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Sparky3D

I'd recommend taking a really close look at the definition of trapping:

“trapping” (overt isolation OR holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them). -emphasis on the first OR is mine

The way I read that rule, overt isolation of the opponents ball is trapping; and catching it and leaving it inside your robot would be pretty "overt isolation".

Just my $0.02

I stand corrected. I still thought it would have been a penalty anyway since that is the intent of the rule in the first place.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Sparky3D

I'd recommend taking a really close look at the definition of trapping:

“trapping” (overt isolation OR holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them). -emphasis on the first OR is mine

The way I read that rule, overt isolation of the opponents ball is trapping; and catching it and leaving it inside your robot would be pretty "overt isolation".

Just my $0.02

The "or" you are referencing is between Overt Isolation and Holding; its not 2 different definitions. They are both still being modified by purposefully doing so. Over Isolation means that you are being obvious in keeping the ball away from the other alliance.

[indubitably]

Originally Posted by dodar

The "or" you are referencing is between Overt Isolation and Holding; its not 2 different definitions. They are both still being modified by purposefully doing so. Over Isolation means that you are being obvious in keeping the ball away from the other alliance.

Intent plays no role in possession.

Read G12

A BALL that becomes unintentionally lodged on a ROBOT will be considered POSSESSED by the ROBOT. It is important to design your ROBOT so that it is impossible to inadvertently or intentionally POSSESS an opponent’s BALL.

[Mr. Van]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

Technically there is still a loop hole. If you catch the opposing alliance's ball and don't move you have not technically possessed the ball according to the definition.

So, if an opponent's ball lands in your robot, the only way to not incur a penalty is to not move?

It seems to me then that "catching" requires some sort of active mechanism that will NOT work unless you really want it to, or you must make a covered top for your robot so that a ball can't fall into it at all. For example, all of the "3-day" robots are very vulnerable to opponent's balls landing in them.

I thought that the Truss Toss & Catch was one of the best elements in the game, but now instead of designing something that will trap a flying ball, we've got to make sure we DON'T catch an errant bounce from our opponent.

I hope this gets fixed quickly!

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox