G27

[ALIBI]

If you use a trackball that is in your possession to intentionally hit another trackball to move it, and you do not care where it goes as long as it moves, have you viloated rule G27?


<G27> HERDING TRACKBALLS – ROBOTS may HERD one or more TRACKBALL at one time.
ROBOTS shall not HERD a TRACKBALL while also being in POSSESSION of a second
TRACKBALL. A PENALTY will be assigned for each infraction.

[G1279]

Doesn't sound like it. It will happen durring the game. It's something they might define better later on this season.

[GaryVoshol]

HERDING: Controlling the position and movement of a TRACKBALL while the TRACKBALL is not supported by any ROBOT (i.e. supported by the TRACK or other TRACKBALLS) shall be considered HERDING. Both continuous and intermittent contact between the ROBOT and TRACKBALL are permissible methods of HERDING. E.g. bumping, plowing or dribbling a TRACKBALL around the TRACK are all considered forms of HERDING.

(emphasis mine)

Already defined. Durn.

[akash155]

the rule book also specifies that bulldozing is legal
Rule <G28> says "Inadvertant bulldozing of trackballs while the robot moves around the track is allowed whether or not the robot is in possesion of, or herding, a trackball"
so to answer your question, no, it is not going to be penalized unless the trackball is being continually bulldozed therefore being defined as herding.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by akash155

the rule book also specifies that bulldozing is legal
Rule <G28> says "Inadvertant bulldozing of trackballs while the robot moves around the track is allowed whether or not the robot is in possesion of, or herding, a trackball"
so to answer your question, no, it is not going to be penalized unless the trackball is being continually bulldozed therefore being defined as herding.

Grabbing a trackball, raising it up to overpass height, and using it to bump off another trackball could hardly be classified as "inadvertent".

[akash155]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Grabbing a trackball, raising it up to overpass height, and using it to bump off another trackball could hardly be classified as "inadvertent".

but wouldn't that be considered herding since its trackball to trackball contact?

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by akash155

but wouldn't that be considered herding since its trackball to trackball contact?

But you can't herd while you have another ball in your possession.

[BRAVESaj25bd8]

Originally Posted by akash155

the rule book also specifies that bulldozing is legal
Rule <G28> says "Inadvertant bulldozing of trackballs while the robot moves around the track is allowed whether or not the robot is in possesion of, or herding, a trackball"
so to answer your question, no, it is not going to be penalized unless the trackball is being continually bulldozed therefore being defined as herding.

I think that akash got it right here. If you are possessing a trackball and you happen to hit another ball, it will not be considered herding IMO.

It looked to me that the initial question was about bulldozing a ball. When you bulldoze game pieces, you may or may not be trying to hit them. As long as you did not continue after the trackball you bulldozed or go out of your way to bulldoze it in the first place, I believe that the referees would not give you a penalty as they would see that your objective was not to herd a trackball while possessing another.

[ALIBI]

So, the idea of using a possessed Trackball to push up on a Trackball in the oppossing alliances overpass is no longer needed! Thank goodness for Unpdate #1.

[Jake177]

In 2004, a large ball possessed by a robot counted as part of the robot. Under that rule, I believe using a track ball in your possession to knock another track ball off an overpass would be a rule violation. I don't see any such rule in this year's manual, but that doesn't mean it won't be there. I suspect that the status of such a ball will be clearly defined by an update.

As a side note, I like to think the 2004 rule was put in place because of something my former team (177) did at the 2001 Hartford Regional. Our robot had one of the big balls in its claw when it fell across the field barrier. The robot landed such that the ball was between the top of it and the floor outside of the field. After about five minutes of searching through the rule book, the refs couldn't find anything about such a situations, and the robot was ruled to be in bounds.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Jake177

In 2004, a large ball possessed by a robot counted as part of the robot. Under that rule, I believe using a track ball in your possession to knock another track ball off an overpass would be a rule violation. I don't see any such rule in this year's manual, but that doesn't mean it won't be there. I suspect that the status of such a ball will be clearly defined by an update.

As a side note, I like to think the 2004 rule was put in place because of something my former team (177) did at the 2001 Hartford Regional. Our robot had one of the big balls in its claw when it fell across the field barrier. The robot landed such that the ball was between the top of it and the floor outside of the field. After about five minutes of searching through the rule book, the refs couldn't find anything about such a situations, and the robot was ruled to be in bounds.

OK, so now it is time to bring this up again this year. As we have to remind everyone, rules from prior year's games DO NOT apply to this year's competition! If you make any assumptions about how a rule will or will not be interpreted based on how a similar rules may be have been interpreted in the past, you run the significant risk of being wrong. And if you base any of your robot design decisions on such a conclusion, you run the significant risk of having to do real-time rebuilds at your first competition. If you have any question about how a rule will be interpreted or implemented, the ONLY way to get an official determination is to get a specific reference from the Manual or the FIRST Q&A. Nothing else - including any answers provided by the well-meaning folks here on CD - has any meaning at all.

-dave

[Jake177]

I didn't mean to assume that the rule from 2004 would apply this year. I only meant to point out that a specific rule about the definition of a ball possessed by a robot had existed in past years, and would probably exist again. I didn't mean to imply how the rule would define it.

[dlavery]

Jake -

Don't sweat it. The post was not specifically targeted at you. Your message just provided the convenient catalyst that was needed to bring up the "don't rely upon previous game rules for this year's game" topic, which does need to be refreshed in people's memory every year.

-dave