Defense is simple. Stop trying to lawyer the rules. Play the robot not the ball.
Yeah play the robot.
With this change it makes it clear that you are allowed to play the ball though.
What if you are the team trying to TRUSS/CATCH?
Is catching now not only a design challenge, but a high risk strategy? I don’t think that the intent of the game was to deter teams from catching balls. This seems to be equivalent to a rule that stated “a high goal shot that hits the player station wall but does not enter the goal will be a penalty”. If this were a rule, would you take the risk hope you never miss a shot?
Is anyone going to design a catching robot knowing that any random bouncing opponent ball could potentially cause a penalty? I know that this change (that you can’t eject an opponent’s ball from your robot without a penalty) is causing us to question the validity of a catch at all…
- Mr. Van
PS - If making “assists” is now more difficult (because an opponent is able to simply bump the ball away from you as you try to pass from one robot to another), then this
makes me fear that this game may dissolve into most robots playing defense against each other and traditionally strong teams running the field by themselves bypassing any assists (inbound, truss, high goal - 20 pts/cycle - repeat - while everyone else is in shoving matches).
From G12:
A BALL that becomes unintentionally lodged on a ROBOT will be considered POSSESSED by the ROBOT. It is important to design your ROBOT so that it is impossible to inadvertently or intentionally POSSESS an opponent’s BALL.
Since possession, specifically trapping, can be defined as overt isolation, you would be penalized for inadvertently catching the ball and stopping.
I’d recommend taking a really close look at the definition of trapping:
“trapping” (overt isolation OR holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them). -emphasis on the first OR is mine
The way I read that rule, overt isolation of the opponents ball is trapping; and catching it and leaving it inside your robot would be pretty “overt isolation”.
Just my $0.02
I stand corrected. I still thought it would have been a penalty anyway since that is the intent of the rule in the first place.
I’d argue that if your robot is in a configuration in such that it could catch a ball, the burden is on you to be aware of where both your and the opponent’s ball is and make sure you don’t catch the opponent’s ball. These aren’t “random bouncing balls”, there is one ball of each color to keep track of.
The “or” you are referencing is between Overt Isolation and Holding; its not 2 different definitions. They are both still being modified by purposefully doing so. Over Isolation means that you are being obvious in keeping the ball away from the other alliance.
Intent plays no role in possession.
Read G12
A BALL that becomes unintentionally lodged on a ROBOT will be considered POSSESSED by the ROBOT. It is important to design your ROBOT so that it is impossible to inadvertently or intentionally POSSESS an opponent’s BALL.
Just because an action was not intentional doesn’t mean that it doesn’t give your alliance an advantage. An unintentional catch should still be penelized. Be conscious of where the opponent’s ball is.
Then it comes to the point of your opponent cannot cause you to get a penalty. If your opponent shoots/launches the ball, how long after the shot is the ball still considered in control by that opponent? If the ball is launched and it bounces 1x, 2x, 3x, etc. how long does it take for that to no longer be the resultant of that robot?
If a ball is shot by Robot-A and it bounces once and then lands in Robot-B, is there no penalty because Robot-A cannot cause Robot-B to get a penalty? How about 2 bounces? 3 bounces? No bounces? When does the safety valve get turned off to where Robot-B has to take responsibility?
If a robot catches the opposing alliances ball either they are getting the penalty or the opposing bot will. However, I only see the opposing bot getting a penalty if the catching bot had been in the same position for a considerable amount of time and it appears that the bot went out of its way to shoot in that direction.
In light of this update, I have a hypothetical for you CDers…
If our robot carries the ball such that some part of the ball is outside our frame perimeter - is it legal for an opposing robot to bump our robot (intentionally) in a spot where the opposing robot (or an appendage of the opposing robot) will hit the ball.
And the same question but what if this action necessarily damages elements of our robot supporting the ball?
I’m not talking about incidental contact but a strategy aimed at dislodging the ball which has near certainty of impacting/damaging our robot extensions?
Before this update, I thought that might be launching. But it clearly is not now - I think.
Comments?
This is going to be a physical game. Design your appendages that exit the frame perimeter accordingly.
I’ve always been under the assumption that deflecting passes (driving into ball and knocking it once) was legal. Am I the only one that views this is a rule confirmation and not a change? 
For reference, here is rule <G14> and the blue box beneath rule <G12>. I have bolded portions that I find particularly relevant to this discussion.
G14
Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL
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).
A BALL that becomes unintentionally lodged on a ROBOT will be considered POSSESSED by the ROBOT. It is important to design your ROBOT so that it is impossible to inadvertently or intentionally POSSESS an opponent’s BALL.
While I am not a ref nor a member of the GDC, so my opinion carries no official weight, my interpretation of is that the actions of the offending team must be clearly intentional (in order to be classified as a “strategy”) and provide the opponent with little or no alternatives to taking a penalty (in order to be classified as “forcing”). With that in mind, I would argue that Robot-A does not recieve a penalty in any of the scenarios you named, since it did not incorporate a strategy solely aimed at forcing Robot-B to take a penalty. Since Robot-A did not violate , Robot-B would then be assessed a penalty for (inadvertently) possessing an opponent’s ball. Even if the ball did not bounce, I would argue the same thing, unless Robot-A took obvious action to aim towards Robot-B.
This isn’t great. Our team has made what we consider to be a pretty great ball pick up device. If the ball touches our front bumper, we “own it”. Tonight, our best driver couldn’t pick up the ball with a single robot (poorly driven by me) bulldozing the ball out of the way. At all. After 30 minutes of driving. The game will be won by a single team whose strategy involves no contact (of the ball) with the floor.
<slightly negative prediction>
We’ll see the return of “if you don’t hit our game piece, we won’t hit yours” and the horrible tensions between teams it creates.
</slightly negative prediction>
You’re telling me one robot was able to keep you from ever getting your front bumper to touch the ball for 30 minutes?
Are you sure that you were not “herding” the ball rather than '“bulldozing”? If you were “herding” the ball, then you POSSESSED the ball.
A. “bulldozing” (inadvertently coming in contact with BALLS that happen to be in the path of the ROBOT as it moves about the FIELD)
…
“herding” (repeated pushing or bumping)