Rule Discussion: Possession

Could you please point out where this is stated?

POSSESSION: a GAME PIECE is considered to be in the POSSESSION of a ROBOT if it is
being fully supported by the ROBOT
, or if the ROBOT is controlling the position and movement of
the GAME PIECE. (emphasis added by me)

If a tube is on the robot and not touching the ground at all, then the robot has possession of it.

<G09> POSSESSION - ROBOTS may only have 1 (one) GAME PIECE in their POSSESSION at
any time during the match. A 10-point penalty will be assessed for each infraction.
(…) GAME PIECES may fall on to a ROBOT during the course of normal
game play (e.g. a RINGER falls on a ROBOT while attempting to HANG it on a Spider Leg).
In such cases, GAME PIECES that are already in the POSSESSION of the ROBOT may be
played. However, the additional GAME PIECE must be removed from the ROBOT (either
by the ROBOT or by an ALLIANCE partner) before it can POSSESS a new GAME PIECE.
GAME PIECES may not be intentionally placed on opposing ROBOTS for the purpose of
causing a violation of this rule. Any such GAME PIECE placements will not be considered
in POSSESSION of the affected ROBOT, and will be ignored.

I do not see anything regarding which alliance did the “dropping.” I do not believe an alliance partner would intentionally drop a ringer on a robot, and I don’t believe the refs should be accountable for the intentions of a robot driver. If a ringer is inadvertently placed on a robot, the robot must get rid of that ringer before it can pick up and score any other tubes.
Also, I didn’t see any penalties for dropping a tube on a competitor (except for perhaps a yellow card)

I never said that I like the rule, endorsed it or think it is “fair”. It is however a clear rule that was given and backed on the Q&A’s. Why is everone so surprised and whinning about this? It is part of the challege live with it. There are so many other issues that are really important and have been changed, modified or misinterpreted that we should be talking to FIRST about, not this.

We accidentaly threw a ringer onto our flag, but the way our arm is designed, we can get it off without to much effort. Other temas are not as lucky. I see how they can use this to enforce the carefulness of how you throw the ringers, but also, it was FIRST that makes you have the flag on the robot sticking straight up.

From the head referee at the Bayou Regionals, it is located in the FIRST Q&A.

Also, to add… We had a ringer thrown over our flag from our own alliance and was penalized twice for it. Once because we already had a ringer in our possession in our claw when it happened, and again when our main driver insisted to continue scoring. I think this rule is not fair because we have no choice in the design of the flag holder, placement of the flag holder, or whether or not we want the flag on our robot.

This exact thing happened to us in our third match of the quarter finals at BAE. It was our third match and we were in an alliance with 1276, they were our only working scoring bot, and our human player threw a tube right on to their flag holder. This forced 1276 to stop scoring and had to play defense with us. This basically lost us the match, flags and inner tubes are not a good mix…

Yes, I agree with Steve and Sean - this rule is NOT new or changed from the beginning and it has always been part of the challenge.

I don’t much like it, BUT - We all must learn to deal with it.

Since the odds of this happening is the same for all robots is the same, as long as everyone mounts the flag per the requirement - just make sure everyone inspected meets the flag requirement.

Then, be very, very, careful where and when you throw the tubes.

Timing and Location is everything!

I must be mistaken about a penalty being assessed; I can’t find that either. See where I bolded the pertinent sentences in <G09> that you quoted. It most specifically says it matters which alliance did the dropping.

yeah, I missed the “opposing” part. Thanks for pointing that out. The prescription on my contacts must have run out.

Did any teams actually receive a penalty for this? We had this happen to us twice (once in practice, once on Friday, both times able to get it back off thanks to our arm design), and we never got penalized. We did score one tube with the other one stuck on us, so that one didn’t count towards our score, but we never actually received penalty points.

I really think human players just need to be careful on this one; if you’re careless enough to throw the tube onto your robot’s flag, you’re going to pay for it.

On a side note pertaining to flags, did any other Regionals implement the “caution flag” system (not to be confused with yellow cards)? At Arizona teams that had a long arm were given a flag with a piece of caution tape tied to it. This served as a warning to the referees to avoid the edges of the field when this robot was near so they wouldn’t get their heads taken off, as well as to watch for violations of the 72" box rule.