Goalie Bots

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay

But it does.

Very impressive. I was attempting to refer to the idea of a robot blocking the entire low goal as well as the area above the low goal, as was being compiled by the people responding to my posts. That robot is still impressive nonetheless. My greater point is that if you're a scoring robot driving toward the 1 point goal in the corner, in pretty much any realistic scenario there's at least one way to end the cycle, be it a side of the 1 point goal or the ten point above it.

[samfruth]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Very impressive. I was attempting to refer to the idea of a robot blocking the entire low goal as well as the area above the low goal, as was being compiled by the people responding to my posts. That robot is still impressive nonetheless. My greater point is that if you're a scoring robot driving toward the 1 point goal in the corner, in pretty much any realistic scenario there's at least one way to end the cycle, be it a side of the 1 point goal or the ten point above it.

The lower bars are on window motors which can put them in front of the one point goal and we can move the blocker on top of the goal.

[FrankJ]

So in the theoretical world, you could design your low goal shot blocker so it deflected the ball without moving. A single deflection is not a possession. The other low goal is still open though.

Your driver will have to be very good about retracting to 60 inches before leaving the goalie zone or incur penalties.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by pntbll1313

Not without getting a 50 point penalty for possessing their opponents ball per Q&A 170

Q170

Q. Regarding possession of opposing alliance's ball: If a robot is attempting to score a 1-pt goal, if an appendage of a defending robot either a) holds the ball from dropping into the top of the goal or b) causes the ball to be "pinned" as it's pushed in the front goal, would it be illegal possession?

A. Yes.

It's ok if you don't "hold" or "pin" the ball. A deflection is not possession, no matter where it happens on the field.

[pntbll1313]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

It's ok if you don't "hold" or "pin" the ball. A deflection is not possession, no matter where it happens on the field.

I'm not talking about a deflection. I'm talking about an appendage that covers the front of the low goal. The way I read it is that if you have an appendage of yours in front of the low goal which causes the ball to be "pinned" as it's pushed in the front of the goal, it would be illegal possession. Isn't that basically word for word the Q&A?

[GaryVoshol]

So as long as you don't hold or pin the ball, you're ok, right?

[pntbll1313]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

So as long as you don't hold or pin the ball, you're ok, right?

Correct, as long as they don't try to push it in the low goal, you are good. The problem is the vast majority of low goal scorers I saw in week 1 competitions pushed the ball, not shot it, into the low goal. That means they are pinning it against your bot. As the Q and A says if they cause it to be pinned to your appendage you get a 50pt penalty.

[Chris is me]

All the 1 point scorer has to do is try to score in the top of the goal. If the ball is prevented from entering, the other robot is holding it.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

All the 1 point scorer has to do is try to score in the top of the goal. If the ball is prevented from entering, the other robot is holding it.

Not necessarily. Let's say that the goalie bot has a wedge shape covering the top of the goal (ignoring any other rules that may break). If the scorer released the ball, it would roll away; therefore, I don't think you could say the goalie is possessing the ball.

[ohrly?]

Originally Posted by pntbll1313

Correct, as long as they don't try to push it in the low goal, you are good. The problem is the vast majority of low goal scorers I saw in week 1 competitions pushed the ball, not shot it, into the low goal. That means they are pinning it against your bot. As the Q and A says if they cause it to be pinned to your appendage you get a 50pt penalty.

I was worried about that earlier in the season. I asked the Q&A about it, and they seem to have said that it would not be considered pinning if a robot was pinning its own ball against an opponent. I think Q170 was referring to more intentional, "actively push the ball into the guardrail"-type blocking.

Q&A 187
Q. Re Q170: A red robot is stationary in front of the low goal. An blue robot continually pushes the blue ball against the red robot, attempting to score in the low goal. Is this a violation of G12, G29 (transitory through the ball after 5 seconds), or another rule?
A. We cannot comment absolutely on hypothetical scenarios. Generally, a ROBOT pinning a BALL against a ROBOT of the opposing ALLIANCE will not be considered a violation of G12. Per G29, pinning is transitory through other objects; there is no exception for BALLS or GOALS.

[Brandon Zalinsky]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

They also can't use their extra height to block the high goal behind the low goal.

Not always true. There are some robots that move their goalie stick from side to side with extensions coming off the side of their robot, allowing them to move over the low goal. See 1710 above.

[FrankJ]

Not always true. There are some robots that move their goalie stick from side to side with extensions coming off the side of their robot, allowing them to move over the low goal. See 1710 above.

Exception that proves the rule?

[eli2410]

Originally Posted by eli2410

I've been curious about something from this year. I know that there weren't a lot of goalie robots out there, but I was wondering what the tallest robot was this year and how tall said robot is. Any and all goalie robots top height is requested.

I know that my team's robot is taller than the goal, but I don't have an exact measurement at the moment.

The thread is: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...84#post1382784