Red robot pushes in blue ball?

From 3.1.4 in the manual

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

-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,
-the ALLIANCE ROBOT last in contact with the BALL was entirely between the TRUSS and their ALLIANCE’S HIGH GOALS, and
-the BALL is not in contact with any ROBOT from that ALLIANCE.

I have seen balls be pushed into the low goal by the opposing robots this year a few times. With the way the rules are written it seems like this should not count as a goal, but it has been scored as one. I hope I’m missing something, but it did occur to me while watching some match tape and I couldn’t find anything in the manual that contradicted it.

At the event I worked as field reset, the Head Ref told the field reset crew personally that a ball “scored in the wrong goal” is still a ball in play, and needs to be returned to the nearest human player (in that situation, the one that is “inbounding” - has access to the pedestal).

Another event I spectated at, this was also the procedure followed.

I’m not talking about a blue ball entering a red goal. I’m talking about a red robot pushing a blue ball into a blue goal. As the rules are written, this seems like it shouldn’t count.

If a blue alliance robot had touch the ball beyond the truss, it meets the definition for scored. If the red robot processed the blue ball, it would be scored & a red penalty.

But a red robot pushing a blue ball into a blue goal should get a penalty for possession.

It might even count as trapping too?

This happened to 195 at Groton. The ball was not scored and was returned into play after about 10 seconds of confusion.

a ROBOT causes one (1) of **their **ALLIANCE’S BALLS to cross completely…

if the blue team pushes in a red ball it shouldn’t count as scored but there should be a possession penalty on blue. Key word in bold above.

There was a discussion about this earlier where a team pushed an opponent into their own ball forcing it into their low goal. There was a direct action by the scoring alliance in that case. Here it seems the question is simply an opponent doing something that they shouldn’t be doing.

It fails to meet the first point, “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”

The robot that caused the action was causing one of their *opponents *balls to cross, etc.

A single bump of the wrong color ball generally is not considered possession… what if it was just a single bump that happened to send it into the goal? I would doubt (in most cases, at least) that the red robot would actually be trying to score the blue ball for the blue alliance! I do agree, however, that a penalty is probably warranted - if the ball is re-entered into play for this scenario, then the alliance’s cycle is interrupted/delayed. If it isn’t, it’s possible the alliance missed out on assist/high goal points for that cycle.

While I think it’s clear in the rules that it shouldn’t count as a goal, I would guess it’s being counted as one most of the time, due to the general understanding of goal scoring (In soccer, basketball, or hockey it doesn’t matter who causes the score - as soon as the game piece is in the net/goal, it’s a score).

The two most common cases I have seen are a team accidentally pushing it in because they are trying to get between their opponent and the ball, and a team pushing their opponent into the ball and getting the ball in which has been mentioned in the thread already.

Either way it seems like these shouldn’t count, but by the spirit of the game I feel like it should count. It’s just worded in a way that would make it not count and I hope that a team update could clarify.

We plowed an opponent into the ball, pushing our ball into our goal. (I have GoPro footage) Even though we never touched it, I would almost argue in this situation that since we had nearly complete control over the opposing robot (directionally) we were the one who “caused the ball [to enter the goal]” by proxy. They were (unsuccessfully) driving forward against us and the fact that we moved them in reverse would show that it was our actions that moved the ball

Another potential rule that needs to be considered would be:

BALLS may not be intentionally or repeatedly ejected from gameplay.

Violation: FOUL per instance.

If Blue has 3 assist on the board, from a strategic standpoint, it would be in Reds best interest to put the ball in the low goal. That way the ball is out of play and has to go to the nearest human player to be inbounded again. Which is valuable time wasted.

From a spectator’s point of view it makes no sense why that ball should not be considered a score. The only reason this rule exist is because the GDC did not want team’s to Full Court Shoot over the Truss.

I still believe that if a Blue Robot pushes a Red Robot into a Blue Ball and the Blue Ball goes into the Blue Low Goal, it should count as a Blue Score. The Blue Robot caused the ball to go into the goal, which meets requirement 3.1.4 - 1.

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


a ROBOT causes one (1) of their ALLIANCE’S BALLS to cross completely…

I missed that part. I like my way better though. :slight_smile: As difficult as this game is to score in real time, I can see the referee simplifying it. I would hope they would be consistent in the call through out the tournament though.

The other thing that I have seen is a robot shooting their ball over the truss and it bouncing into their low goal. It seems like this should not be counted as a goal by the rules posted in this thread.

How about herding - gotta have some pretty purposeful motion to pop that ball up and into the front of the 1-point goal, eh?

No fouls were levied against the red alliance in the following situation - not for directing the ball toward the blue goal initially, nor for pushing it through the front of the goal.

Here is video of the match (thanks again, 2252). It is clear to this set of eyeballs that red was not under duress and purposely HERDED our blue ball into the goal, with no help from blue -

It is also clear that the referee was looking directly at this action the whole time, and failed to act.

Here are the head referee’s exact words related to this red alliance action - “That particular match, if we are talking about the same occurrence, was definitely followed by a lengthy discussion between your driver, 829’s driver, and I. Our interpretation was that the team bumped the ball one direction (towards the driver station), then in a different direction (towards your goal). Because the pushing/bumping led the ball in different directions, we considered the bumps separate and, therefore, not repeated and not herding. As for them “scoring” your ball in the low goal, we did not see them break the plane of your alliance’s low goal. We did notice that your alliance robot(s) were in the area, and while engaged in a pushing match with the opponent, the ball was forced into the low goal. There is no rule against such an occasion. The definition of scoring (3.1.4) does not specify that the robot scoring be from the offensive alliance.”

Video evidence is a heck of a thing, ain’t it? :slight_smile: It’s also fun when you can overhear the people taping the vid call out the infraction from the very top of the bleachers.

Regarding the ball being scored or not scored - if the blue alliance above needed a 10 point goal plus assists to win the match, I do not like that the defensive alliance could use a 1-point goal score as a defensive maneuver without repercussion.

Calling herding for pushing the ball into the goal mitigates this unfairness. Yeah we get 1-point instead of 10, but thank you very much for the 50 points as well. Maybe you won’t try doing it ever again now.

I have noticed the same thing.

To me, the truss-shots-bouncing-into-goals should not be counted. I would suggest raising this question during the Drivers’ Meeting before the event.

We did this twice in qualifying matches at the PNW Oregon City district, inbounded, truss shot, then bounced into the top of the low goal. It was a definite fluke, but pretty cool to see.

The first time the refs counted it as scored for 1 point, and gameplay continued. The next time they got a field resetter to return the ball to our human player on the far side of the truss. In the first case, it definitely didn’t sway the outcome of the match, but it seems the refs reviewed it and came to an understanding about how it should be handled in the future. The tough part is that it takes coordination between the ref making the call, and the field reset properly handling the ball - if field reset isn’t paying close attention, they could think it was scored and immediately return it to the far end of the field. As long as they are both aware of this possibility it should not be an issue.

We also had a unique case in finals where our alliance shot over top of opposing robots, the shot was deflected by an opposing bot, bounced off the top of them and into the top of the low goal. Technically our alliance initiated the score from the correct side of the truss, but the last robot to touch the ball was an opposing robot. It was counted as scored, although there was an ~8+ second delay before the pedestal lit. We were told after that the ref had made an error on the scoring pad and it took awhile to undo and correct - since it didn’t affect the outcome of the match we didn’t replay.

And to add insult to injury the refs indecision to decide what to do cost the alliance an 8 second delay in lighting the pedestal.

In one of our qualifying matches a opposite alliance robot scored the ball and was returned to the field and considered in play.

Only bad thing about this is that it consumes a lot of time and i’m not sure if the opposite alliance gets a foul or not

In a similar vein, I believe the scores SHOULD count (along with at least one tech foul awarded), because I certainly don’t want the defenders knowing they can pop the ball out of play through the 1-point goal and have us wait for a volunteer to return it to a HP before we can get our assist points credited. The match may end before that happened. Unless you want to double whammy them with two techs - one for herding, and one for illegally and intentionally removing an opponent ball from the playing field. Then go for it - thanks for the 100 points, jokers! :wink: