Opponents scoring your balls

I’ve seen a decent amount of matches, where an opponent robot pushes your ball into your goal. Most of the time, they do not get a tech foul for possession, and it doesnt count as scored, even though I’ve seen some refs call it as scored. This takes a good while of time to get the refs to figure out what to do, and I was wondering how some of the refs are calling this, and why it would not be a possession, because it is very consequential.

I wouldn’t want to say this is how I’d call it in real time, but let’s break your question down into two parts:

  1. Should the ball count as scored?

I would argue no, based on item 3.1.4 Scoring, specifically item A

A BALL is considered SCORED in an ALLIANCE’S GOAL if

A. a ROBOT causes one (1) of their ALLIANCE’S BALLS to cross completely and remain completely through the opening(s) of one (1) of their ALLIANCE’S GOALS without intervening TEAM member contact,
B. the ALLIANCE ROBOT last in contact with the BALL was entirely between the TRUSS and their ALLIANCE’S HIGH GOALS, and
C. the BALL is not in contact with any ROBOT from that ALLIANCE.

As the robot is not causing their own alliance’s ball to go through the goal, it shouldn’t count.

  1. Should this be called as possession?

This one is a more difficult call. G12 reads

An ALLIANCE may not POSSESS their opponent’s BALLS. The following criteria define POSSESSION :

A. “carrying” (moving while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT or holding the BALL in or on the ROBOT),
B. “herding” (repeated pushing or bumping),
C. “launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT), or
D. “trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).
and the blue box goes on to provide

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).

If it’s a wacky bounce off an opposing robot into a goal, it might count as bulldozing or deflecting and therefore shouldn’t be considered possession. Assuming that it’s not an obvious case of carrying or launching, then it becomes a judgement call as to whether it was herding or not.

What my decision process above doesn’t cover is a situation where a ball is next to a low goal, an opposing robot decides to try to trap the ball between themselves and the goal (that’s a foul), and then a robot shoves into the opposing robot forcing the ball into the goal. It would be a matter of debate whether 3.1.4 A is satisfied, i.e. did the robot cause the ball to enter the goal despite not directly contacting it. As well, what happens if the ball was successfully trussed before being trapped by the opposing team. Then 3.1.4 B wouldn’t be satisfied, but it would be if it had contacted the ball on the goal side of the truss.

I’m just one ref, so this is just how I’d make my case to the head ref given the situation posed.

If not G12, perhaps G11?

BALLS may not be intentionally or repeatedly ejected from gameplay.

Violation: FOUL per instance.

I would argue that if a ball was intentionally hit into a low goal without constitution possession, this would be the correct penalty.

If an opposing robot accidentally hits your ball out of play without using a moving mechanism, then that’s just tough luck.

Does the proper-colored robot CAUSE the ball to be scored, even if they’re doing it by pushing their opponent? If so, and 3.1.4 B was satisfied, then it should count. (This ref’s opinion–and it has been called this way at some events.)

We had a case last weekend where our ball was on the floor in front of our goal with 3 assists on it. The defense got between us and the ball, we just pushed them sideways and they could not help but push the ball into the goal. It was scored along with all of the assists.

It’s not the same as the OPs question, but whenever a ball goes through the wrong-colored goal, field reset rarely seems to realize, or have much haste, in returning it to play. I wasn’t participating in any of those matches, but I would be annoyed if that happened to me.

How about this: robot goes the wrong way in autonomous, rams opposing robot nearly into their goal w/ball. Would that ball count? The last to touch it owned it.
Sorry about that 60 :frowning:
60 almost made a high goal shot anyway; what a robot!

And I wouldn’t blame you. See if your field reset can be trained to react to a “LIVE BALL” call. That’s what we did in L.A.–any non-scored ball outside the field got hollers of “live ball” and a visual cue from the refs to field reset. (Though… if it’s through the wrong goal, it’s your inbounder that should probably be the one with haste, seeing as it’s in your driver’s box!)

First, that’s a technical foul for the robot going the wrong way and ramming their opponent. Even if that ball doesn’t go in, the opponent already got more points than most cycles have been generating. Second, if the ball meets the criteria of scored, then it’s scored.