Defence on the High Goal?

[Madison]

Originally Posted by markmcgary

I'm not sure if this statement plays nicely with Q116?

There's certainly potential for a device like that to get you into trouble. A distinction should be made, however, between how a device operates and how it is used.

Edit -- I thought you linked to the same Q&A as Jon did -- https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/...-of-g12-if-the, but you did not.

For what it's worth, the Q&A you've linked to here -- 166 -- has no bearing on the legality or function of a spinning blocker.

[markmcgary]

Originally Posted by Madison

For what it's worth, the Q&A you've linked to here -- 166 -- has no bearing on the legality or function of a spinning blocker.

I re-read your post and I agree with you. Said device is legal and would remain so unless and until future interaction with a ball caused it to deflect outside of the 6" cylinder. In order to comply with Q116, said device would have to be infinitely rigid to remain inside the 6" cylinder when reacting to the force of a impelled ball striking the device.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by markmcgary

I re-read your post and I agree with you. Said device is legal and would remain so unless and until future interaction with a ball caused it to deflect outside of the 6" cylinder. In order to comply with Q116, said device would have to be infinitely rigid to remain inside the 6" cylinder when reacting to the force of a impelled ball striking the device.

Well, sufficiently rigid, not infinitely so.

[gpetilli]

Originally Posted by Madison

There's certainly potential for a device like that to get you into trouble. A distinction should be made, however, between how a device operates and how it is used.

Edit -- I thought you linked to the same Q&A as Jon did -- https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/...-of-g12-if-the, but you did not.

For what it's worth, the Q&A you've linked to here -- 166 -- has no bearing on the legality or function of a spinning blocker.

Yes, there is a distinction between operation and usage, but I think the device under consideration would be constantly spinning (not necessarily under software control) to increase the effective volume. The way I read Q177 is that if you have a spin-able blocker and locate it in the path of the ball, it is legal as long as it is not moving (w.r.t robot) at the time of impact. If it is constantly spinning, it will launch (possess) the opponent's the ball and incur a foul at time of impact. Am I missing something?

That said, if the robot itself was in a death spiral and the blocker was not moving w.r.t the robot, that would be legal - as long as the robot is in constant contact with the goal.

[Caleb Sykes]

I feel like a spinning tall blocker that is hit by an incoming ball would not be considered "launching" the ball because "launching" requires "impelling a ball to a desired location or direction". I don't think that a freely spinning blocker that is hit by a ball meets this requirement.

Let's say that I am a goalie in a soccer game. I run around in a circle in front of the goal at a constant speed with my eyes closed. An opponent shoots the ball at the goal and the ball bounces off of me at some arbitrary angle. Would anyone say that I had "impelled the ball to a desired location or direction"? I certainly wouldn't.

Back to Aerial Assist. A tall blocker is spinning on top of a robot. An opponent shoots the ball at the goal and the ball bounces off of the blocker at some arbitrary angle. The tall blocker is certainly in motion relative to the robot, but the goalie robot has not impelled the ball to a desired location or direction. Hence, this robot does not "launch" the ball and should not receive a penalty.

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by inkling16

I feel like a spinning tall blocker that is hit by an incoming ball would not be considered "launching" the ball because "launching" requires "impelling a ball to a desired location or direction". I don't think that a freely spinning blocker that is hit by a ball meets this requirement.

Let's say that I am a goalie in a soccer game. I run around in a circle in front of the goal at a constant speed with my eyes closed. An opponent kicks the ball at the goal, and the ball bounces off of me. Would anyone say that I had "impelled the ball to a desired location or direction"? I certainly wouldn't.

Back to Aerial Assist. A tall blocker is spinning on top of a robot. A ball comes close to the blocker and bounces off at some arbitrary angle. The tall blocker is certainly in motion relative to the robot, but the goalie robot has not impelled the ball to a desired location or direction. Hence, this robot does not "launch" the ball and should not receive a penalty.

One could argue "away from the goal" is a desired direction.

[JamesCH95]

Rather than rotating the blocker about an axis inside the 6in cylinder, rotate the blocker about an axis outside of the 6in cylinder. Imagine a 6in diameter tube on the edge of a lazy Susan.

I'm sure there's a way to use a spirograph-like mechanism to further increase the effective blocking area of any proposed device, more complex than a lazy Susan, but a much bigger wow factor.

Details are left to the reader as an exercise.

['lil robo-girl]

I like the rotating idea, but for our team, the main dilemma is how to get it up there without swinging out. In the case of a spinning plate, how would you go about that? (There's about a two foot difference between how high you can be out of the goalie zone, and the middle of the goal. See rule G22.)

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Well, there sort of are four of them.

You have a different definition of "safe" than I do.

[Descartes2.0]

We discussed using high speed alternating rotating hockey sticks at an angle keeping it within the 6 in. column. When one stick is in the air, the other is was down and on the way back up. If spun fast enough, and weighted properly, you can essentially make a 24 in. wide defense mechanism.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by 'lil robo-girl

I like the rotating idea, but for our team, the main dilemma is how to get it up there without swinging out. In the case of a spinning plate, how would you go about that? (There's about a two foot difference between how high you can be out of the goalie zone, and the middle of the goal. See rule G22.)

Like I said earlier, 2ft-3ft stroke air cylinders are OTS from McMaster Carr. You could use an air cylinder to directly deploy a 'blocker' element.

As for spinning, I would look at a Lazy Susan bearing from AM or McMaster, and think about how I could drive it with gears or chains+sprockets.

There are about a thousand different ways to make this mechanism, you'll have to decide what's best for your team.

[gpetilli]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

Like I said earlier, 2ft-3ft stroke air cylinders are OTS from McMaster Carr. You could use an air cylinder to directly deploy a 'blocker' element.

As for spinning, I would look at a Lazy Susan bearing from AM or McMaster, and think about how I could drive it with gears or chains+sprockets.

There are about a thousand different ways to make this mechanism, you'll have to decide what's best for your team.

James,
I think the language the game design committee used for the answer to Q177 is very clear that a spinning Lazy Susan will draw fouls. Please re-read their ruling below:

"Generally, if the MECHANISM is in motion relative to the ROBOT at the time of impact, it is "launching" and thus POSSESSION. If the MECHANISM is not in motion relative to the ROBOT, it is considered "deflecting" and not POSSESSION."

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by gpetilli

James,
I think the language the game design committee used for the answer to Q177 is very clear that a spinning Lazy Susan will draw fouls. Please re-read their ruling below:

"Generally, if the MECHANISM is in motion relative to the ROBOT at the time of impact, it is "launching" and thus POSSESSION. If the MECHANISM is not in motion relative to the ROBOT, it is considered "deflecting" and not POSSESSION."

Good to know. Thank you for posting.

[Erobot]

The top of the goal is about 10ft high but the center of the goal is about 8ft high. The ball is 2ft and the goal opening is 3ft 1in. the 1in makes me laugh.
Anyways, Do the math, to block a high goal shot you only need a 3ft extrusion for a 5 ft robot of course. That sound more do able. Through my experience last years game clarified the vertical cylinder rule for climbing the pyramid, right? if the contact with the ball rocks the whole robot the vertical cylinder should rock with it to, right?

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by Erobot

The top of the goal is about 10ft high but the center of the goal is about 8ft high. The ball is 2ft and the goal opening is 3ft 1in. the 1in makes me laugh.
Anyways, Do the math, to block a high goal shot you only need a 3ft extrusion for a 5 ft robot of course. That sound more do able. Through my experience last years game clarified the vertical cylinder rule for climbing the pyramid, right? if the contact with the ball rocks the whole robot the vertical cylinder should rock with it to, right?

Considering the trajectory of the ball, it could be even lower, though not by much.

During match play, since most balls will be launched from a low position, a 5' robot could position themselves in front of a launcher to stop a 10 point goal shot.

I stated in another thread that I fear the 10 point goal may become an orphan over time.