Should this be considered a CATCH?

At the time, I was thinking no because it did not meet my intuitive definition of “catch”, and apparently, the refs did not think so either because we were not credited 10 extra points. Fortunately, whether it was a CATCH or not likely did not effect the outcome of the match. Here are the relevant sections of the manual:

CATCH: the event when a BALL SCORED over the TRUSS by a ROBOT’S ALLIANCE partner is POSSESSED by that ROBOT before contacting the carpet, the ROBOT which SCORED the TRUSS, or HUMAN PLAYER.

POSSESS: (for a ROBOT) to carry, herd, launch, or trap (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them) a BALL.

The only way IMO that this would count as a POSSESSION is by the definition of trap. This certainly looks like a trap to me. If that is true, all of the criteria for CATCH would be met, so this should count as a CATCH. Had our driver held it in place a bit longer, then it would almost certainly be considered a trap, and should also receive the CATCH points.

Dead link.

Fixed bad link.

Can’t see for sure if the HP contacted it or not. If the HP did, no catch.

That said, I’d agree based on the trap–if that ball stopped moving and the robot was holding it against the wall, trap, then a release to get the ball picked up.

Chalk another one up to the GDC requiring the refs to look 4 directions at once…

Imo, yes it should. As you pointed out, in Aerial Assist, unlike in, say, baseball, trapping the ball against the side of the field counts as a possession. This may not meet the definition of catch we’re all used to, but I think it does meet the definition of catch used in the Aerial Assist rulebook.

This specific scenario was brought up in referee training, but with trapping against the alliance wall, not the side wall. That was deemed a catch. This probably should have been considered a possession, and thus a catch.

However, the referees could have ruled that it was an example of the blue box under G12