Possession has always been a grey area. I’ll paste in G27 to explain what I mean:
G27. One-GEAR limit. ROBOTS may not control more than one GEAR at a time.
Violation: FOUL. If strategic, TECH FOUL and YELLOW CARD.
Moving or positioning a GEAR to gain advantage is considered “control.”
Examples include, but are not limited to:
A. “carrying” (holding a GEAR inside a ROBOT)
B. “herding” (intentionally pushing a GEAR to a desired location or
C. “trapping” (holding a GEAR against a FIELD element in an attempt to
shield or guard it)
Examples of interaction with GEARS that are not “control” include, but
are not limited to:
A. “bulldozing” (inadvertent contact with GEARS while in the path of the
ROBOT moving about the FIELD)
B. “deflecting” (being hit by a GEAR that bounces into or off of a
If a GEAR becomes lodged in or on a ROBOT, it will be considered
controlled by the ROBOT. It is important to design your ROBOT so that it
is impossible to inadvertently or unintentionally control more than the
This is a question that really has always been around. Assuming you have a herding design (for whatever reason), if you are controlling one gear, but cross the path of another on the ground, how should that be scored?
The second gear would be at the same place as the first, so wherever you took the first would mean that it’s strategic movement. However, inadvertent contact isn’t any foul. If while possessing a gear, you “bulldoze” another towards the lifts, how should refs score it?
I’m asking here because so much is objective. Looking for opinions on this, because any robot that has a drive train is capable of pushing gears.
If you very obviously push it towards a partner, it’s a violation.
If you push one gear out of the way to place the one you have - violation.
If you very obviously bulldoze it several feet towards your airship , it’s likely a violation for most refs.
Push it a little, back off, and then obviously try to go around it - no violation.
Where it’s gray to me is what happens if you can’t see the gear on the ground, or even see your robot. It is literally impossible to figure out the intent of drivers controlling a robot they can’t see. Yet drivers can be held liable for everything that happens at the lifts since they can see their robot.