Is it possible to score a ball without POSSESSing it?

[Racer26]

I noticed when I was watching Finals 2 of GTREast that it looked to me like the red alliance was shortchanged by 40 points.

It didn't change the outcome, but watching the video again, it definitely looks like they successfully completed 2x 41-pt CYCLEs (3 ASSISTs + TRUSS + LOW GOAL) in addition to their autonomous score, but only got credited for 2x 21-pt CYCLEs.

The first cycle, its pretty apparent by the ASSIST lights that the refs just missed counting 2198's POSSESSION in the blue ZONE.

I did notice though, that on the second cycle, when 4476 puts it through the LOW GOAL, they did so in a way that arguably did not actually constitute 'herding' (though I would argue that they did 'trap' the BALL against the field border just before they SCORE it).

Do you think it is possible to SCORE a BALL through a LOW GOAL, without POSSESSING it? (Discuss the general case, and not this specific instance.)

[petercooperjr]

A robot can POSSESS the ball without being in a specific zone. (That is, if the robot straddles more than one zone, it is not credited with possession in either one.) So, a robot could conceivably receive an inbound ball while on say the red/white border, toss over the truss to an alliance robot straddling the blue/white border, and that robot could shoot the ball into the high goal. You would get truss and catch points yet 0 assists. The scoring for 0 and 1 assists just happens to be the same, is all.

[Zuelu562]

By the pure letter of the law, here's my take. When a ball enters play, it must either A) touch the carpet on the close side of the truss or B) come in contact with an alliance robot before the ball may go beyond the truss. By this rule, a ball may enter play without being possessed, and in theory, directed into a goal without being possessed. By pure rulings, a ball never needs to be possessed to be considered scored. By mechanics, I really can't see how a robot ramming a ball into a goal does not gain possession of it.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by petercooperjr

A robot can POSSESS the ball without being in a specific zone. (That is, if the robot straddles more than one zone, it is not credited with possession in either one.) So, a robot could conceivably receive an inbound ball while on say the red/white border, toss over the truss to an alliance robot straddling the blue/white border, and that robot could shoot the ball into the high goal. You would get truss and catch points yet 0 assists. The scoring for 0 and 1 assists just happens to be the same, is all.

OK, let me rephrase part of my question.

Is it possible for a ROBOT completely within the coloured ZONE to SCORE a BALL into a LOW GOAL without that ROBOT POSSESSING it (ie. by a single hit that wouldn't count as 'herding')?

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by Racer26

OK, let me rephrase part of my question.

Is it possible for a ROBOT completely within the coloured ZONE to SCORE a BALL into a LOW GOAL without that ROBOT POSSESSING it (ie. by a single hit that wouldn't count as 'herding')?

I think so. Possession is pretty tightly defined, and scoring a goal could potentially happen by chance (bounce in from a truss shot, for example) or by accident (opposing team bumps the ball into the low goal). Thus, it could happen that an alliance partner bumps the ball once (not possession) and scores off the deflection. Think soccer.

[FrankJ]

I would think the if the intent to score the ball was there, it would be a possession. An accidental deflection wouldn't be. It would be a judgment call by the referees.

[Gregor]

Every shove into the low goal that I've seen has either been a trap or a herd, which both constitute as possession.

Originally Posted by FrankJ

I would think the if the intent to score the ball was there, it would be a possession. An accidental deflection wouldn't be. It would be a judgment call by the referees.

Could you cite a rule on that...

[FrankJ]

G12 and the glossary is where possession is defined. Herding is defined as multiple hits. Bulldozing (one hit while traveling to A to B) is not a possession. So one hit with the intention to put the ball in the goal is not really defined since it is not bulldozing or herding. Deflection is defined as not a possession.

So no I cannot site a rule where this is clearly defined hence it is the referee's interpretation of the rule of possession.

In terms of the game. This is an area that should be thoroughly covered in the driver's meeting so your drivers know how what counts as possession both in terms of scoring & avoiding penalties.

[Clinton Bolinger]

Another example:

Match 61 - Kettering District

The last Cycle which included 3 assist for the Blue Alliance was removed from the score after the match (31 points) because the refs claimed that a blue robot did not possess the ball when the ball went into the goal. However, there was no trapping or possession called on the Red Alliance for this action either.

http://youtu.be/_0DL5Tp-1GM?t=1m15s

Thoughts?

-Clinton-

[Taylor Nicholson]

Possession was consistently called this way at GTRE. After removing 3173's arm for eliminations and replacing it with a ramp for the purpose of low goal scoring, we (3710) would take the ball and place it their ramp to score (3173 still had to push the ball in). Assist points were not counted for 3173 doing this in the quarter-finals. This caused us to change our strategy to have them inbounding, where we had trouble with both herding and trapping being called. Our alliance's initial plans for the finals (before 1241 didn't field for F1 and our launcher failed in F2) had 3173 playing solely defense due to the difficulty of having an assist count without an active mechanism controlling the ball.

[pntbll1313]

Originally Posted by Clinton Bolinger

Another example:

Match 61 - Kettering District

The last Cycle which included 3 assist for the Blue Alliance was removed from the score after the match (31 points) because the refs claimed that a blue robot did not possess the ball when the ball went into the goal. However, there was no trapping or possession called on the Red Alliance for this action either.

http://youtu.be/_0DL5Tp-1GM?t=1m15s

Thoughts?

-Clinton-

Based on my reading of the definition of SCORE it appears to be a perfectly legal goal. No where in the definition does it say the ball needs to be directly proceeded by a possession. (If they wanted it read that way they would state it just like they say CATCH points are awarded only if directly preceded by a TRUSS SCORE.


A BALL is considered SCORED in an ALLIANCE’S GOAL if

A. a ROBOT causes one (1) of their ALLIANCE’S BALLS to cross completely and remain completely through the opening(s) of one (1) of their ALLIANCE’S GOALS without intervening TEAM member contact, it appears from the video the blue robot pushed the red bot into the ball through the goal. Thus they caused it to cross into the goal
B. the ALLIANCE ROBOT last in contact with the BALL was entirely between the TRUSS and their ALLIANCE’S HIGH GOALS, and The last blue robot in contact with the ball was clearly in the blue zone
C. the BALL is not in contact with any ROBOT from that ALLIANCE. The ball passed completely through the goal and was not touching a blue robot


Really the only thing that could be argued is that it didn't meet (A) but I believe that it did.

[FrankJ]

The question is not about scoring the goal. It is about possession before the goal. The possession gives you additional points.

In the Arkansas regional F3 blue was apparently called for possession of red ball by bulldozing (or herding) it into the blue goal at the end of the match.
<http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119689&page=8> about post 112 forward.

[pntbll1313]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

The question is not about scoring the goal. It is about possession before the goal. The possession gives you additional points.

You're right that was the original question. I was quoting and answering Clinton Bolinger's question which was slightly off topic, but related as well. I guess I could have started a new thread to answer it but it seemed on topic enough to answer it here.

[jmcrawford45]

As a single unintentional hit by either alliance can result in a low goal score, the situation described by the OP certainly can and has occurred in regional events. In my experience, the referees have called this identical scenario both as possession and not possession, depending on the context of the game and the impact on the final score. Subjective interpretations changed the outcome of many matches this weekend, up to and including elimination matches. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE. I don't believe that any team in any sport enjoys winning by persuading a scorekeeper to their point of view (except maybe a debate team.)
Unfortunately, the game manual contains some generalized rules that fail to explicitly define the legality of specific actions (like singular incidental contact causing an opposing alliance's ball to go into a low goal.) In Aerial Assist, this puts the burden on referees to decide the winner of many matches, including regional finals. I certainly wouldn't want to be the person to tell a drive team, "After much deliberation, we have decided that you intentionally hit the wrong ball 5 minutes ago. Better luck next year!"
To answer your question, I have seen a ball scored both with or without possession, depending on the circumstance and the referees' interpretation of the rules. Because of this, I would suggest avoiding the "grey areas" of this year's rule book at all costs. This especially applies to frame extensions near the field barrier, human player fouls, and possessing an opponent's ball. Make the legality of your actions so clear that referees cannot possibly lawyer it into something against the rules. It makes life a whole lot easier for the referees and event staff and makes Aerial Assist a much more enjoyable game to play and watch.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Clinton Bolinger

Another example:

Match 61 - Kettering District

The last Cycle which included 3 assist for the Blue Alliance was removed from the score after the match (31 points) because the refs claimed that a blue robot did not possess the ball when the ball went into the goal. However, there was no trapping or possession called on the Red Alliance for this action either.

http://youtu.be/_0DL5Tp-1GM?t=1m15s

Thoughts?

-Clinton-

Bolded part is not true. The score wasn't counted because the referees ruled that it was not a blue robot that caused the ball to cross into the goal. If you consider it a score (which I would have.. but I'm not a ref), then it's a perfect example of a score that occurs without possession. "Scored" uses a lower standard than possession, so it's totally within the rules that a robot can score a ball without possessing it.