Suction as a method for possessing balls

[robself705]

As long as the ball stays on the ground it is considered POSSESION which is perfectly legal. If the ball comes off the ground that is considered HOLDING which is a penalty.

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by robself705

As long as the ball stays on the ground it is considered POSSESION which is perfectly legal. If the ball comes off the ground that is considered HOLDING which is a penalty.

the key is that any ball on the ground can be in possession of the robot.
Any ball OFF the ground and in possession would be CARRIED... that is a penalty.
Carrying can occur ANYWHERE on the robot... the key is that the ball MUST stay in contact with the ground.

Any vacuum system would have to be designed to keep the ball on the ground...

[Taylor]

So a robot that is controlling a ball via suction goes over a bump. At some point, that ball is going to lose contact with the ground. Would this be a carry?
edit: I realize this should be an official Q&A but I'd like to see what you fine folks think.

[sdcantrell56]

Originally Posted by Taylor

So a robot that is controlling a ball via suction goes over a bump. At some point, that ball is going to lose contact with the ground. Would this be a carry?
edit: I realize this should be an official Q&A but I'd like to see what you fine folks think.

How would this not be a penalty? The rules explicitly state you cant be in control of a ball thats not in contact with the ground.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by sdcantrell56

How would this not be a penalty?

It's not intentional, and probably momentary. It's like having the ball bounce off your hand in soccer--the refs probably won't call that, especially if you don't make any move to control the ball or your hand is against your body, but they can if they think it's intentional on your part.

Yes, definitely one for Q&A.

[sdcantrell56]

Originally Posted by EricH

It's not intentional, and probably momentary. It's like having the ball bounce off your hand in soccer--the refs probably won't call that, especially if you don't make any move to control the ball or your hand is against your body, but they can if they think it's intentional on your part.

Yes, definitely one for Q&A.

IDK the fact that you know you designed your robot so that it violates that rule whenever you go over a bump sounds pretty intentional. I agree its definitely not an easy thing to work around but so far it seems pretty explicit.

[Chexposito]

in overdrive 1986 (Team Titanium) used a suction cup to move the track balls, it worked extremely well compared to initial thoughts.

[sami9145]

Suction... hadnt thought about that yet but it seems fun!

to answer the bump problem... as long as the vaccuum suction is turned off when you go over the bump so its not holding the ball would it still be possession if it "happened" to go over the bump with you even tho you had no hold on it at that time?

i will put this idea to my team tho >.>

[Analog]

Suction may work, but it seem that the ball needs to drag on the ground, and not roll.

[Hadi379]

Originally Posted by robself705

As long as the ball stays on the ground it is considered POSSESION which is perfectly legal. If the ball comes off the ground that is considered HOLDING which is a penalty.

I think its almost impossible to cross the bump while possessing a ball. If you try to go up the bump with the ball in front of you, the ball will raise off of the surface as you reach the flat of the bump and thats saying the ball doesn't jam you up at the bottom of the incline and possibly causing you to climb on top of the ball. If you try to drag the ball behind you as you climb up the ramp, it will again come off of the surface as you level out on the flat and as you descend down the bump.

Although, what usually happens is I get proved wrong......

[Iceman1330]

You would violate the rule if the ball was held static to the robot. However, if your vacuum end effector was on a articulated member such that the weight of the ball at the end always held it against the ground (no matter the angle of your robot) I could see this working.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Iceman1330

You would violate the rule if the ball was held static to the robot. However, if your vacuum end effector was on a articulated member such that the weight of the ball at the end always held it against the ground (no matter the angle of your robot) I could see this working.

Incorrect. You would be in POSSESSION of a ball, which you are alowed to do as long as the ball is in contact with the floor.

If the ball came off of the carpet then you would be CARRYING the ball, which is a penalty.

[Iceman1330]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Incorrect. You would be in POSSESSION of a ball, which you are alowed to do as long as the ball is in contact with the floor.

If the ball came off of the carpet then you would be CARRYING the ball, which is a penalty.

Which is exactly why what I described does not incur a penalty. If the ball always remains in contact with the floor then you are not carrying.

Others seem to suggest a vacuum system which is rigidly attached to the frame. If they did this and if they went over a bump the ball would lift in the air (because their robot would lift into the air) and they would incur a carrying penalty. Utilizing an articulated vacuum mechanism the ball will always remain in contact with the floor.