'Trivial' Posession allowed?

[jvriezen]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

Agreed. In addition to Q&A, I think that the rule wording implicitly states that two robots can possess the same ball simultaneously. I laid out that argument here.

For completeness, I'll summarize the argument:
Given that the manual states that holding a ball against a robot is possession (Possession definition part 4, "trapping"), both robots are holding the ball against the other robot (Newton's laws), therefore both robots must be awarded possession simultaneously. There is no other way to satisfy that part of the rules.

That being said, I agree that without the robot originally in possession of the ball demonstrating that they have relinquished control, it will be hard to get that call from the refs. In order to have a chance, I think it has to be clear that both robots are a necessary part of the "trap" to have dual possession awarded.

I'd maybe not go quite that far (which is why I had the multiple scenarios). In cases where the ball is safely gripped or cradled (3,4) does the second bot also satisfy the 'overt' and 'shielding' aspect that is seemingly required for a trap to be a POSSESSION ?

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

I'd maybe not go quite that far (which is why I had the multiple scenarios). In cases where the ball is safely gripped or cradled (3,4) does the second bot also satisfy the 'overt' and 'shielding' aspect that is seemingly required for a trap to be a POSSESSION ?

Sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean to imply that I think all of the presented scenarios qualify. I was simply trying to say that I agreed with Justin's interpretation that the rules allow for simultaneous possession by two robots.

It is still up to interpretation as to what actually qualifies as "trapping", but the rules regarding trapping seem to make it clear that multiple robots can possess the same ball at the same time in certain cases.