Lets say one blue alliance caps a red alliance goal by shoving the 2x ball all the way down into the bottom of the goal. Now, as per the updates, any ball thrown into the goal that sits ABOVE the 2x ball is legal (correct me if im wrong). Now, red alliance moves to uncap that goal, a legal process. There is NO way for the red alliance to uncap said goal without removing those small balls in the process. Is it therefore at this point illegal to uncap this goal?
Interesting scenario… If I’ve overlooked something, by all means correct me. I don’t have access to the Q & A question posting system, so if no one can come up with an answer, can someone with an account ask FIRST? Thanks!
EDIT: okay, update, I just found this on Q & A:
Section: 4.4.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/28/2004
Q: Earlier answer indicated small balls above 2x ball are still doubled. If 2x ball is removed by opponent and small balls thus descored, is the penalty value the doubled small ball value?
A: In this very special circumstance, a small ball may fall out in the removal of a large ball. That is the risk faced by all competitors. As long as the descored ball was not touched by the opposing robot, there would be no penalty flag thrown provided you do not violate any other rule.
So, are those balls descored then? Is this a legal way to descore an opponent?
I dont know about everyone else, but I see from this a system in which teams will shove the 2x down, then later remove the 2x to descore an opponent. Thoughts on the subject?
a few of us on our team were discussing this very topic sunday the way we looked at as long as the descored small balls don’t touch your machine this sounds like a legal way to descore balls.
I had this exact thought earlier in the season, and proposed the scenario to my team during a brainstorming session.
Me: What if you shove a 2x ball WAYYY into your opponents goal, they score small balls ontop of it, and you unscore the 2x ball, accidentally removing small balls from your opponents goal.
Everyone: Then there’d be another update!
It seems to me, however, that this might be the only way to legally descore a small ball. I think it is both gracious and professional, despite the array of claims that you will get on this thread otherwise, in due time. It’s a smart strategy, and a robot that can exert enough force to get the ball all the way into the goal and then exert enough force to get it all the way out, along with some small balls and the pressure from the goalposts, is well-deserving of recognition.
but the issue arises, does that mean you can no longer uncap a goal? The object of your goal is to uncap a goal, not to descore an opponent. See where the fine line comes into play? How can you tell someone what THEIR intent was when its impossible to decipher.
If the large ball is part of your robot when your robot is holding it, then it would be pretty tough to remove one from the bottom of a goal without touching the small balls above it.
umm…i have a quick technical note…has anybody actually tried cramming the ball down, putting balls on top of it, and then removing it? it’s quite difficult for a human to do, let alone a robot (despite the intent.) just mentioning it…
its not really hard to cram the ball all the way down to the 4 ft. high goal… but i am not sure about the stationary goal… it might be hard to cram the 2x ball down to that stationary goal…
"Mike M.: a few of us on our team were discussing this very topic sunday the way we looked at as long as the descored small balls don’t touch your machine this sounds like a legal way to descore balls. "
as somebody already pointed out in this thread that the 2x ball becomes your extension of the robot… that means that when you are pulling out the 2x ball from the goal and there are small balls inside of it… you are using your robot to take it out… meaning that you are descoring the small balls…
<G21> While a ROBOT is holding a LARGE Ball, that ball will be considered an extension of the ROBOT.
Section: 4.4.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/28/2004
“…As long as the descored ball was not touched by the opposing robot, there would be no penalty…”
It seems to me FIRST is making a distinction between a robot holding a ball and touching a ball. The question becomes, what defines holding? Using some common sense (as Dean has reminded us to do), the distinction seems clear in most cases. For instance if someone asked you if you were holding or touching a tennis ball, I think you’d be able to give them an easy answer. Apply this same reasoning to a robot and a big yellow ball.
This is also very true. Now this brings me back to another point of mine (those of you following my posts are probobly wondering where my stance is by now. I have none, I keep pointing out the other side because I don’t think its clear). If the 2x is an extension of the robot, then when you move to uncap a goal, a legal operation, you’re *robot * will interact with the small balls. As Jeremy pointed out, this is illegal. Now, however, you’ve made it illegal to uncap this goal. Dilemma again!
We did some testing of the ball-smashed-in-goal theory, and found that depending on how far it in it is, it’s hard to get out. But, in order for the ball to be put in, the robot would have to exert lots of force just to get it pushed in, which is more likely not to happen than trying to get the ball out. Simply put, the force to push a ball down will cause the bot to tip forward and loose stability. Now, for lifting, that can be avoided.
In conclusion, while possable to smash the ball into the goal and get it out, it’s hard to get it out, and VERY hard to push it in with a robot.
This is that one in a million scenario that IS going to occur no matter what. I think the best answer is the one that FIRST gave and at the disgression of the referee of the match as to whether or not penalties will me thrown.It’s most likely the opinion of the referee that could make or break this strategy. That’s my educated guess.
It seems to be a total contradiction on FIRST’s part, but then again, they did say “as long as no other rules are violated” or something to that effect. Descoring with the large ball in the robot’s possession will violate the descoring and/or goaltending rules, so those should apply, therefore making this move illegal.
Have your human players actually tried shooting into a goal that has a large ball stuffed in it?? Try the ball at different heigh levels and see what happens…
We have and found that it depends on who far the ball is in it. The higher up it is, the harder it is to enter the goal, not only because of the bounce of the big ball, but you can’t use the PVC as a slowing device like you can if the ball is in deeper. Here’s what I’ve seen:
-ball thrown straight down don’t go in.
-the PVC slows down the balls to let the score
-the gap between the PVC and ball can stop the small balls
The best type of throwing motion is a basketball throw with a big arch that’ll hit the PVC, and that will slow down the balls.
Will smalls balls stay in a goal that has a large ball smashed in it. It would seem that the PVC would bend far enough that the gaps between the poles would be larger than the small balls. Therefore you would not be able to score small balls on top of a large ball. Has anyone tried putting small balls on top of a large ball already in a goal? If so, please comment on how it worked out.
I think it’s an interesting idea, and I don’t think anyone has the real authority to make a ruling on it except FIRST - since it does fall in a VERY grey area of the rules.
I personally would like a definitive answer, since it will determine how many teams with large ball capabilities play the game.
Here’s another question - if the enemy team throws balls at your robot while you do this, would it be considered “goaltending” and give a -10 point deduction per ball that hits you?
This is precisely the reason why FIRST should make things spelled out and black and white.
