Balls In Opposing Robots

[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.

[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?

[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.

[drwisley]

Originally Posted by mizscience

This. Teams need to know the rules. If you have a question, send a pre-college member to the question box to talk to the head ref asap after a match. That's the only way something could possibly be done.

I have seen, at least a dozen, matches where the refs conferred, and locked down the result before the student in the question box was even approached. I asked some of these students a few times for feedback and responses from the refs were very similar...too late can't do anything now. The question box may help future matches, but nothing for the current ones.

[rkbot]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

You have to remember while your drive team is in charge of communicating with 1 alliance, and playing based on input you are getting from the field. A ref needs to keep track of both alliances, human players, robots, flying objects, and all sorts of other things. It isn't much of a shocker to me that a ref doesn't know about the penalty you got that one time during that one match.
I think in the end though no penalty is truly going to be placed on any team for no reason what so ever. Just because one ref doesn't know doesn't mean someone else wont know.

It does not matter what another person knows because the head ref is in charge

[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.

[Karthik]

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.

Thanks for the kind words, but we lost for a multitude of reasons, one of which was because our alliance violated rules that were clearly spelled out in the Game Manual. I've posted this already in another thread, but didn't want this comment to unchecked. No one should take anything away from the victory by the 4476/1285/2198 alliance, they deserved it entirely. I know we're not dwelling on penalties, rather brainstorming ways to improve our performance in future events.

I don't mean to single you out, Justin, but in general I dislike this trend on Chief of people diminishing the victories of others. Our team has been on both sides of this coin, and it's never fun. There absolutely needs to be discussion on the merits of various game rules and penalties, but we also need to be able to do it without marginalizing the efforts of the affected teams on both side of the result.

[GBK]

The rules are the rules. They are written in a very specific way and meant to be called in a very specific way. We are going to see times where the ref's make judgment calls and not everyone is going to agree with the outcome. We had a match yesterday that our opponent ended up with our ball for a short time and got rid of it as quickly as they could and did not get called on it. Had the call been made the way the rules stated, we would have won the match. However the way the call was made was consistent with how it was made all weekend. This game like any other game and for that matter Life itself has a certain element of luck. Lady luck was not on our side this time.

[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.

[robochick862]

My two cents is that the game was designed for catching these balls and human player loading. So many teams have hopper like collector systems. My team was in a match where the opposing ball landed in our partners robot and they had technical difficulties prevented them from ejectong the ball. We got penalties for possessing and prolonged possessing. It just felt a bit unfair. They were doing everything they could to get rid of it. It's not like they were trying to continue playing with their ball. I think the whole "intentional" possessing is a hard call. Just like having your collector driven into and getting penalties for inside the frame perimeter.

Just my two cents. :/

[IronicDeadBird]

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.

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

TlR
Punishing for accidents because your design should account for that.

[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.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by rkbot

It does not matter what another person knows because the head ref is in charge

If it was only based on the head ref's decision they wouldn't provide multiple refs to keep track of the entire field.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

If I was 1285, 4476 or 2198, it would be pretty disheartening to hear people say I won two matches because of one 50 point penalty (in a match we won by 74 points).

This.

[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.