Can an immobile robot POSSESS a BALL?

Context for this thread is given in posts 61-67 of the “YOU Predict the Average Match Score of 2014’s Week 1 Regionals/Districts” thread":
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124057

Relevant posts quoted in next post here.

If an alliance partner can set the ball on top of (even a non moving) robot and then pick it up, an assist is awarded. If a second alliance robot can get into a second zone, (same scenario as the first) another assist is awarded. Am I misunderstanding?

Neal

Which definition of “Assist” in the rule book did the non-moving robot meet?

I don’t think it meets any. A non moving robot cannot possess a ball and therefore cannot get an assist. If they were moving it would be carrying.

The following criteria define POSSESSION :
A) “carrying” (moving while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT),
B) “herding” (repeated pushing or bumping),
C) “launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction), and
D) “trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).
Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL per instance.

ASSISTS are earned when a unique ALLIANCE ROBOT POSSESSES the ALLIANCE’S BALL in a unique ZONE

Point 2 - If an opponents ball falls into a non moving robot, the robot has possessed the ball, whether it meant to or not.

Neal

Can you please explain which of the 4 definitions of possessing that robot has done? A, B, C, or D? (see the post above yours for the different definitions of possession)

-Sorry I don’t mean to derail this thread it just seems like this may be incorrect

A BALL that becomes unintentionally lodged on a ROBOT will be considered
POSSESSED by the ROBOT. Pretty obviously if it was intentional, it is then possession. So, I am saying that if the ball is not in the act of rolling off, then it is lodged.

Neal

Can an immobile ROBOT POSSESS a BALL?

This topic came up last night with my team. I had asked the students “do you have to move to assist” as a bait question, and I said that you do not technically have to.

The robot I had in mind would be able to sit by the human load station, receive a ball in the top from a human player, and LAUNCH it out in some directed way.

I wouldn’t argue that this is a very practical design, but I can’t see that it would be ruled illegal or “not a possession” to a referee. This might not meet your definition of “immobile” if you are referring to nothing on the robot moving (actuating) vs. simply staying in a fixed position.

However, to the other thread’s point. If an alliance robot was capable of both setting the ball on an alliance partner as well as pick it up off of them, I would call this a grey area. Yes, if you do that to an opponents ball you are “possessing it”, but I think the very definition of an assist (in English) implies some action being taken by the one assisting.

Just speculation though, your guess is as good as mine.

edit:
Ironically, as I went to add the definition, I found this second (rarely used) definition of assist in Websters.

1: to give support or aid <assisted at the stove> <another surgeon assisted on the operation>
2: to be present as a spectator <the ideal figures assisting at Italian holy scenes — Mary McCarthy>

So, our big question is, “Suppose a robot looses connection to its drivers station. Then an alliance robot puts a ball into its receiver (as per its design). Has it then possessed it?”

I contend that it has.

I’d imagine the question will have to go to Q&A.

Neal

Since “carrying” requires moving, a non-moving robot can’t carry, therefore not possess.

But what if that (non-moving robot holding a ball) was then moved by an alliance parther? It has a ball and is moving, just not under its own power.

That needs a QA response…

The following criteria define POSSESSION :
A) “carrying” (moving while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT),
B) “herding” (repeated pushing or bumping),
C) “launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction), and
D) “trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).
Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL per instance.

Immobile robots are incapable of A and B, and I can’t really see how D can occur. LAUNCHING would be very easy to accomplish, a robot whose top formed a ramp could passively sit near the human player and receive the ball and allow the ball to roll off in a desired direction.

From Merriam-Webster dictionary…

1car·ry verb \ˈka-rē, ˈker-ē
: to move (something) while holding and supporting it

**: to contain and direct the flow of (water, electricity, etc.)

: to have (something) with you or on your body**

Looks like one could apply either of the last two definitions to argue even a stationary robot could be “carrying” the ball if it is an “etcetera”.

Except we don’t use the dictionary definition, we use the definition given in the manual. (Quoted in the post just above yours.)

Point taken:D

I was taking Immboile to mean “not moving”, including not being able to move (e.g., launch). As in disabled, or loose battery connector, or dead cRio, or bad radio, or…

I would say yes, an immobile robot can possess a ball via trapping.

Emphasis mine.

If Redabot 1 is immobile on the field, and Redabot 2 pushes a ball between the two of them such that the ball is pinned between both robots and unable to move, and neither robot has sole possession (that is, if either robot were to suddenly disappear, the ball would be free to move around), I would argue that the ball is trapped, per the definition of POSSESSION.

Because both robots are part of the trap, possession must be awarded to both robots simultaneously. The trap (and therefore possession) does not exist without the presence of BOTH robots.

Redabot 2 could even back up slightly, releasing the ball before retaking control of it to demonstrate that Redabot 1 was an integral part of the trap.

Whether or not the refs will call it this way remains to be seen, but I don’t see a good argument for why this shouldn’t be a trap.

sounds like “overt isolation” and clearly not in the spirit of gratuitous professionalism

I’m confused as to why you think this is not graciously professional? Both robots are from the same alliance, and one robot is immobile (radio problems, cRIO reset, dead battery, etc). They are serving a useful function to their alliance and helping to score points simply by being on the field, even though their robot is non-functional. That’s more than can be said for a dead robot in almost every other game.

Check team update from 1/10/2014

http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/Updates/0#term 147

If an ALLIANCE’s BALL becomes stuck in an ALLIANCE’S ROBOT, the ALLIANCE may signal to the Head Referee that the BALL is “dead” (specifics regarding the signaling process are yet to be determined). At this point, the Head Referee will suspend the CYCLE (TRUSS and CATCH points are maintained, ASSIST accruals are voided) and re-illuminate the PEDESTAL, beginning another CYCLE for that ALLIANCE. If the dead BALL is freed, that BALL must be removed from the FIELD through one of the ALLIANCE’S GOALS or by passing to an ALLIANCE HUMAN PLAYER before the ALLIANCE can earn any more points. Each ALLIANCE is allowed to indicate one (1) BALL as “dead” per MATCH.

If an ALLIANCE’S BALL becomes stuck in an opposing ALLIANCE’S ROBOT, the Head Referee will signal an extended infraction of G12 (the assumption is that the ALLIANCE has already been penalized for the initial G12 infraction). At this point, the Head Referee will suspend the current CYCLE and re-illuminate the PEDESTAL, beginning another CYCLE for that ALLIANCE. If the stuck BALL is freed, that ball will be considered FIELD debris.

My guess is that a dead or immobile robot would fall under this ruling…

Im sorry, I misinterpreted the scenario. That would be a great use for a dead bot, but I don’t think the refs will give it the assist. I hope I am wrong.