What is considered a catch

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by DMike

With the obvious overwhelming effort put into the rules and more rules. I would think that the definiton of "Catch" would be absolute. Ie. in possession for (X) amount of time, or mandatory movement of the bot after catching. Now we want to enact the vague "grandmothers rule", I would argue that inadvertently ending up with your opponents ball in your bot doesn't define possession, due to complete lack of intent. In fact are there any rules preventing an alliance from intentionally placing the ball in an opponents bot?

See [G12] regarding possession as discussed earlier, and [G14]:

Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

Thus if you try to force an opponent to commit a foul by possessing your ball you get a technical foul.

http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/

Yes, I missed that (G12) similiar to last years full court shooters, that sat in the loading zone only to move forward and create the technical foul. I witnessed this several times, with game changing consequences.

[Bob Steele]

Let me pose this question.
You place a rotating bar on top of your robot. The ball is thrown over the truss it lands on your rotating bar and is "batted" somewhere on the field.

Is this a catch? It would be a possession... the bar is moving relative to the robot... so this would be launching which is defined as possession.

Granted you don't know exactly where the ball will be going but you should get the 10 points for a catch..


What say you?

[jvriezen]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

See [G12] regarding possession as discussed earlier, and [G14]:



Thus if you try to force an opponent to commit a foul by possessing your ball you get a technical foul.

http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/

And, if your intentionally force your opponent to possess your ball in their 'hopper', they are free to hold onto that ball for the rest of the match without penalty.

Q159 Q. If a blue bot deliberately (as determined by a ref) causes a blue ball to be POSSESSED by a red bot, will G12 apply or will G14 apply? If G14, and the POSSESSION is via carrying, can red POSSESS the ball for the remainder of the match without penalty? Consider if Red is not be able to free it.
FRC2530 on 2014-01-17 | 7 Followers

A. If it is determined to be a "strategy aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule", G14 would be called. In this case, there would be no additional penalty for the Red ALLIANCE continuing to POSSESS the BALL.

[Josh Fritsch]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

Let me pose this question.
You place a rotating bar on top of your robot. The ball is thrown over the truss it lands on your rotating bar and is "batted" somewhere on the field.

Is this a catch? It would be a possession... the bar is moving relative to the robot... so this would be launching which is defined as possession.

Granted you don't know exactly where the ball will be going but you should get the 10 points for a catch..


What say you?

It really depends on whether the refs would think you are fulfilling the "to a desired location or direction" part of:

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

However I think it's pretty subjective to say if a team hit it in a "desired location or direction"...so based on the definition of POSSESSION I would have to say:

Yes, it would count as a CATCH. Whether or not it's called that way may be a different story.

A Blue bot on one side of the truss throws the ball over the truss to a Blue aliance member that is actively being defended from said catch by red defender.

The ball goes into the red bot, whats the call ? The Blue throwing bot is aware of the increased possibility that the ball will go into the red bot, but attempts the throw regardless.

Is the Red bot penalized ? If yes, why would the Red bot accept the risk involed in defending the throw?

[pntbll1313]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

Let me pose this question.
You place a rotating bar on top of your robot. The ball is thrown over the truss it lands on your rotating bar and is "batted" somewhere on the field.

Is this a catch? It would be a possession... the bar is moving relative to the robot... so this would be launching which is defined as possession.

Granted you don't know exactly where the ball will be going but you should get the 10 points for a catch..


What say you?

We already discussed this question on kickoff day http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124016&highlight=definition+of+ca tch

[Josh Fritsch]

Originally Posted by DMike

A Blue bot on one side of the truss throws the ball over the truss to a Blue aliance member that is actively being defended from said catch by red defender.

The ball goes into the red bot, whats the call ? The Blue throwing bot is aware of the increased possibility that the ball will go into the red bot, but attempts the throw regardless.

Is the Red bot penalized ? If yes, why would the Red bot accept the risk involed in defending the throw?

I believe that the RED robot would receive a G12:

G12
An ALLIANCE may not POSSESS their opponent’s BALLS. The following criteria define POSSESSION :

“carrying” (moving while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT or holding the BALL in or on the ROBOT),
“herding” (repeated pushing or bumping),
“launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT), or
“trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).

Yes, there is always going to be some possibility that a ball a BLUE robot threw is caught by a RED robot accidently, but I hardly think that a BLUE robot passing to another BLUE robot (even with defense being played) would be considered a G14:

G14
Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

The RED robot would accept the risk based on alliance strategy, robot design, driver ability, and probability of this specific scenario occurring, while weighing the benefits to the alliance of playing defense.

[Mr. Lim]

Is a bobbled and dropped catch still a legal catch?

A ball hits your robot in two places during a catch attempt, then spills out of the robot.

Would that be considered herding, thus possession, thus a successful catch, even though the ball was never successfully "caught?"

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

Is a bobbled and dropped catch still a legal catch?

Yesterday's update says no:

Examples of BALL interaction that are not POSSESSION are

...

B. “deflecting” (a single hit to or being hit by a BALL that bounces or rolls off the ROBOT or a BALL slips through the grips of a ROBOT without arresting the BALL'S momentum).

[Edxu]

So from my interpretation, the new addition to "deflecting" means that the ball touches the robot, but then leaves after contact (eg. bounces in and goes out), wouldn't be considered possession.

However, wouldn't "Herding" be considered possession if the ball bounces inside the robot multiple times, as used in the definition of herding?

Therefore if the ball bounces inside the robot a few times and then bounces out, wouldn't it legally be called possession by herding, and thus catch points?

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

My grandmother's opinion of the rules doesn't bother me this year since an "assist" could be:
-Robot Red 1 pins ball against wall for a couple of seconds
-Every robot ignores the ball for 90 seconds
-Robot Red 2 collects it, drives it the length of the field, and scores it

I'm very interested in how this is going to be called at events this season. By the definitions and rules, this form of Trapping is Possession that would lead to an Assist. However, based on the comments of many volunteers, who are using the "grandmother rule", Trapping is not "enough" Possession to constitute an Assist. I hope that everyone is going to enforce the actual written rules, as opposed to this esoteric grandmother clause.

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by pntbll1313

We already discussed this question on kickoff day http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124016&highlight=definition+of+ca tch

That discussion was a good one but it was done before the clarification about what a launch was. With the new clarification that to be a launch the portion of the robot that contacts or launches the ball has to be moving relative to the robot it needs further discussion

I tend to think it will be a judgement call by the referee If a
robot had a giant bat on their robot that could hit the ball into the goal after the flight over the truss it should count as a catch. It would definitely count as a possession

So what about a "foul tip". .?? Does it count as a possession if a robot hit a ball towards the goal? Why would "towards the goal" be the only "desired" location?

I Think this needs to be further clarified.

In my opinion the catch was "intended" by the game makers to be control of the ball and not a simple launch. In any sport a catch would mean control. I know that this is not any sport but we still need to think about what catching is in the context of its common usage

The guy with the bat at the plate in baseball
is not called the catcher.

I believe this need to be clarified by the GDC. This will make the game easier to referee

[Josh Fritsch]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I'm very interested in how this is going to be called at events this season. By the definitions and rules, this form of Trapping is Possession that would lead to an Assist. However, based on the comments of many volunteers, who are using the "grandmother rule", Trapping is not "enough" Possession to constitute an Assist. I hope that everyone is going to enforce the actual written rules, as opposed to this esoteric grandmother clause.

It will be interesting from the standpoint of both offense - which I believe you are referring - as well as defense being played. If an opponent BLUE ball inadvertently gets trapped between the field side rail and a RED robot - even for a second, technically this is possession by the RED robot and a 50 point technical foul.

We'll see I guess.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Josh Fritsch

It will be interesting from the standpoint of both offense - which I believe you are referring - as well as defense being played. If an opponent BLUE ball inadvertently gets trapped between the field side rail and a RED robot - even for a second, technically this is possession by the RED robot and a 50 point technical foul.

We'll see I guess.

Very true. I think it's very interesting that the GDC used a universal definition for both offensive and defensive Possession. If I were writing the rule, I would have been inclined to use the current definition for Possession to define what you cannot do with your opponents' ball, and have a more restrictive definition on what you need to do with your own ball to constitute offensive Possesion. This would keep the same restrictions on defensive interference on the ball, but would also force teams to exhibit a more intuitive form of possession on offense. I still find the idea that a team can press/Trap a ball against the side of the field to score points, to be very counter intuitive.