I have seen this strategy used several times in the past few weeks, however it has not been penalized like I believe it should be.
Robots (usually 1 or 2) block the ball from the opposing alliance's ball in a corner to prevent it from being scored. I have seen this done for between 10 seconds and half of the match, but I have not seen a call against this. The
final match of the West Michigan district is the only video example I can find of this, but I have seen it multiple other times on various webcasts. To me, it seems completely unGP and a strategy that no one should ever consider doing.
G12 seems to be the only rule against it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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: FOUL, if unintentional and inconsequential (i.e. does not significantly impact MATCH play). TECHNICAL FOUL per consequential instance. TECHNICAL FOUL per extended instance. 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.
The intent of G12 is to prevent an ALLIANCE from inhibiting an opponent’s ability to interact with their BALL, but accommodate accidental and inconsequential actions by way of fewer FOUL points. Actions which are perceived as consequential and extended are distinct violations, as there are scenarios where POSSESSION of an opponent’s BALL could be consequential or extended but not necessarily both.
|
*emphasis mine
Is it not being called because the robots are not actually contacting the opposing alliance's balls? Is this really the way anyone wants the game to be played?