Balls In Opposing Robots

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by Justin Shelley

I agree. It is extremely saddening to me that this caused 1114 to lose. They had the best robot there and in my opinion should've won. These penalties are deciding elimination matches when the penalties received are judgement calls. Meaning it is debatable as to whether or not the penalties should've been received. In the Finals at the Arkansas regional the Blue Alliance won the first match and the next two the Red Alliance won but solely because of foul points that were questionable.

On the note of 1114 what were the penalties for that match. I know there was a tech. foul for the possession of an opponents ball but was there another one?

[orangemoore]

I find that the rule covers all of the situations of possession but I don't like the rule.

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).

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL per instance. If extended, another TECHNICAL FOUL. If strategic, RED CARD for the ALLIANCE.


Examples of BALL interaction that are not POSSESSION are

A. “bulldozing” (inadvertently coming in contact with BALLS that happen to be in the path of the ROBOT as it moves about the FIELD) and

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).

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.

I find that is a very cold approach to the situation.

[JohnFogarty]

Since when should engineering not have a hard, defined, approach to a problem that could very easily occur.

[pigpenguin]

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

Can we at least agree this is a bad way to word this rule? Sure it covers all the bases but it presents an odd situation (at least they way I am reading it). How do you design a bot that can intentially hold your ball but not your opponents?

[mwtidd]

On this note also, I would say be careful about calling for a dead ball twice in a match. As we saw at UNH this weekend, this can be grounds for a replay. The ball getting lodged in another team results in a 100 point penalty, however, you must wait for the head ref to suspend the cycle.

If an ALLIANCE’S BALL becomes stuck in an opposing ALLIANCE’S ROBOT, the Head Referee will signal an extended infraction of G12 (the assumption is that the ALLIANCE has already been penalized for the initial G12 infraction). At this point, the Head Referee will suspend the current CYCLE and re-illuminate the PEDESTAL, beginning another CYCLE for that ALLIANCE. If the stuck BALL is freed, that ball will be considered FIELD debris.

I would advise all teams not to call for a dead ball in this situation. In our third semifinal match we got the blue alliances ball stuck in our robot in this semifinal match (In what may be the best unintentional catch thus far).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcMtO...k57J7Q# t=170

You will see at 3:11 that the blue alliance on the right side of the screen holds up the dead ball sign. Then the match proceeds and one of their teammates gets the ball lodged in them. You can see at 3:56 that a second dead ball is called for.

Even though the second dead ball replacement is never put into play it was deemed that just calling for it was grounds for a replay of this semi final match. Luckily, this did not affect the outcome of this semifinal series, but under other circumstances it certainly could have.

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by pigpenguin

Can we at least agree this is a bad way to word this rule? Sure it covers all the bases but it presents an odd situation (at least they way I am reading it). How do you design a bot that can intentially hold your ball but not your opponents?

Require your bot to actuate to collect or catch a ball (put a collector out, spin your roller claw, open a pneumatic, etc) -- then, if you possess a ball, it was because your drivers actuated the machanism.

[pigpenguin]

Originally Posted by BigJ

Require your bot to actuate to collect or catch a ball (put a collector out, spin your roller claw, open a pneumatic, etc) -- then, if you possess a ball, it was because your drivers actuated the machanism.

This design allows you to both intentionality possess your ball and your opponents ball not only yours.

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by pigpenguin

This design allows you to both intentionality possess your ball and your opponents ball not only yours.

I misunderstood. Yes, saying "impossible to intentionally possess your opponents ball" is silly.

[MrTechCenter]

We had a similar situation yesterday at CVR. Our alliance's ball got stuck in the opposing alliance's robot and the opposing robot died on the field. In this instance, who is supposed to hold up the dead ball card? How is our alliance supposed to know if the opposing robot is dead or is going to try to spit the ball back out?

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by MrTechCenter

We had a similar situation yesterday at CVR. Our alliance's ball got stuck in the opposing alliance's robot and the opposing robot died on the field. In this instance, who is supposed to hold up the dead ball card? How is our alliance supposed to know if the opposing robot is dead or is going to try to spit the ball back out?

That is two technical fouls & the Referee will declare the ball dead. No need to use your dead ball card.

[MrTechCenter]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

That is two technical fouls & the Referee will declare the ball dead. No need to use your dead ball card.

We were given 100 points for the two technicals but the ref told us that they were waiting for a dead ball card before re-lighting the pedestal. Their mistake, I guess.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by MrTechCenter

We were given 100 points for the two technicals but the ref told us that they were waiting for a dead ball card before re-lighting the pedestal. Their mistake, I guess.

From Match Logistics 3.1.2

If an ALLIANCE’S BALL becomes stuck in an opposing ALLIANCE’S ROBOT, the Head Referee will signal an extended infraction of G12 (the assumption is that the ALLIANCE has already been penalized for the initial G12 infraction). At this point, the Head Referee will suspend the current CYCLE and re-illuminate the PEDESTAL, beginning another CYCLE for that ALLIANCE. If the stuck BALL is freed, that ball will be considered FIELD debris.

Refs need to read the manual too.
Please remember Referees are all volunteers doing a difficult job. I mean no disrespect to them.


The rule is the same for intentional or intentional procession.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by pigpenguin

Can we at least agree this is a bad way to word this rule? Sure it covers all the bases but it presents an odd situation (at least they way I am reading it). How do you design a bot that can intentially hold your ball but not your opponents?

I stand by my original statement (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...highlight=typo) that this is a typo that was never addressed. If it is not a typo, it is certainly a very silly blue box "clarification". I'd be willing to bet that there are no teams out there that designed their robot such that they cannot intentionally possess the opposing alliance's ball.