2X Ball Into the Ball Release

[Jones571]

You would also at least get a 10pt penalty for crossing the plane of the player station. If not disabled because that would be deliberate it happened to several teams in the Midwest regional I remember 45 doing it a few times.

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Jones571

You would also at least get a 10pt penalty for crossing the plane of the player station. If not disabled because that would be deliberate it happened to sever teams in the Midwest regional I remember 45 doing it a few times.

Yeah if you break the plane of the 7ft wall with your robot or ball held by the robot, it's a 10pt penalty each time, not dq. We got that penalty twice in one match (within a few seconds of each other) due to a little craziness while driving in that area... No harm done...

[Jones571]

I was watching those matchs thanx to the live web cast and it didnt even look like your fault a few times u were pused while holding the ball up there

[10intheCrunch]

Looked more like the ball crossed the plane, not your actual arm--they changed the rules to say the yellow ball is only part of your robot in the cases of goaltending/assisting balls to goals. Hmmm....

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by 10intheCrunch

Looked more like the ball crossed the plane, not your actual arm--they changed the rules to say the yellow ball is only part of your robot in the cases of goaltending/assisting balls to goals. Hmmm....

You know, I believe you're right. If only the 2x ball crossed the wall plane, I don't think we should have gotten a penalty (2 actually). And, even if our robot was pushed so that we crossed the wall plane, the pushing robot should have gotten the penalty. We would have lost that match anyways by 10pts, even without 3 penalties against our alliance.

We also had a match where we were disabled due to the 2x ball in our arm touching the floor outside the field. Although the ref told us that was the reason we were disabled, I'm not sure that's right (2x not being part of our robot in that case). However, it probably would have been deemed unsafe anyways even though we probably could have gotten ourselves back up....
Oh well!! Life goes on...

Edit - Found out we actually did touch the carpet with our robot arm, but it was also a safety concern for the volunteer crew sitting right there.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

You know, I believe you're right. If only the 2x ball crossed the wall plane, I don't think we should have gotten a penalty (2 actually). And, even if our robot was pushed so that we crossed the wall plane, the pushing robot should have gotten the penalty. We would have lost that match anyways by 10pts, even without 3 penalties against our alliance.

We also had a match where we were disabled due to the 2x ball in our arm touching the floor outside the field. Although the ref told us that was the reason we were disabled, I'm not sure that's right (2x not being part of our robot in that case). However, it probably would have been deemed unsafe anyways even though we probably could have gotten ourselves back up....
Oh well!! Life goes on...

Hmm... I think FIRST should set a presedence on the ball holding situation. There shouldn't be cases. Either the ball is or is not a part of your robot. Period.

My reccomendation would be that the ball is not part of the robot. I can't even think of a situation where it would make sense to call the ball a part of a robot.

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Hmm... I think FIRST should set a presedence on the ball holding situation. There shouldn't be cases. Either the ball is or is not a part of your robot. Period.

My reccomendation would be that the ball is not part of the robot. I can't even think of a situation where it would make sense to call the ball a part of a robot.

In a sense, yes. But I think they are right to limit the amount of "blocking" of things that you can do in a game. You can already block both chutes with goals. But if they don't call the 2x ball part of the robot in goaltending, then all we would have to do is grab a 2x ball and hold it over the opponents stationary or mobile goal all day long. That would be boring... I don't know.. I'm sure there's many opinions.. but that's the way it is. We'll just have to make sure to ask the judges at nationals what they say about the rule..

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

In a sense, yes. But I think they are right to limit the amount of "blocking" of things that you can do in a game. You can already block both chutes with goals. But if they don't call the 2x ball part of the robot in goaltending, then all we would have to do is grab a 2x ball and hold it over the opponents stationary or mobile goal all day long. That would be boring... I don't know.. I'm sure there's many opinions.. but that's the way it is. We'll just have to make sure to ask the judges at nationals what they say about the rule..

That brings up another grey area... thanks

Caping your opponents goal as a successful way of goal tending. I don't understand how you can't allow goal tending, but you are encouraged to cap your opponents goal to raise your QPs.