Game Definitions

[Administrator]

Reply to this post to ask a question about Game Definitions.

[Sheldon]

in the detailed field drawings for the baton dispensers there are two holes in part # 182 that are in the bottom third in one drawing and in the top third in the other drawing this is a two inch difference and i want to clarify which way it goes before we design our robot for the wrong orientation

On Sheet 18, the Front view drawing simply shows the location of the holes with respect to the edges of the Crossmember, you should not infer assembled orientation from this view. The Isometric view in the lower right corner shows the orientation of the Crossmember to the rest of the parts. The Crossmember should be assembled with the 2 holes closer to the floor.

[Raj]

The GDC has seen many posts asking for clarification of the term "possession" with respect to the batons. Based on all of these questions, we have come up with an update and clarification to the term possession.

Possess / Possessing a Baton - Controlling the position and movement of a BATON. A BATON shall be considered in POSSESSION if, as the ROBOT moves or changes orientation (e.g. backs up or spins in place), the BATON remains in approximately the same position relative to the robot.

Batons that are being "driven over" or being "pushed" are not considered in "possession" as you would be able to move or change orientation of the robot and the batons would stay where they are.

These updates will be made to the next version of the Game Manual which will be available later this week. All previously asked questions concerning baton possession are considered to be answered by this post. Any new Q&A should be referenced with respect to this (and other) new definitions. Thank you.

[Raj]

The GDC has seen many posts asking for clarification of the term "possession" with respect to the rolling goals. Based on all of these questions, we have come up with an update and clarification to the term possession.

Possess / Possessing a Rolling Goal - Controlling the position and movement of a ROLLING GOAL. A ROLLING GOAL shall be considered in POSSESSION if, as the ROBOT moves or changes orientation (e.g. backs up or spins in place), the ROLLING GOAL remains in approximately the same position relative to the robot.

These updates will be made to the next version of the Game Manual which will be available later this week. All previously asked questions concerning rolling goal possession are considered to be answered by this post. Any new Q&A should be referenced with respect to this (and other) new definitions. Thank you.

[Wil Wheaton]

The new definition of "possession" of a rolling goal is an improvement, thank you.

But to further clarify: it is permissible to push the rolling goal approximately forward as long as NEITHER a left or right spin in place NOR a backward motion by the robot also brings the goal substantially along with the robot. A spin might nudge the goal a bit but as the robot continues to spin the goal would presumably detach from substantial control of the robot. A slow turn, rather than a spin in place, that nudges the goal in a desired direction would apparently be acceptable. Are these clarifying statements consistent with the spirit of the new definition? Will hardware inspection ask teams to demonstrate spins and backing up with the robot in position to move the goal in order to verify compliance?

The ability to "posses" a Rolling Goal will not be something that the inspection process will test.

The referees will assess possession dynamically, on the field. The referees will be watching for situations that, in their opinion, represent control of all directions of motion of the Rolling Goal.

One way to understand is to visualize the following tests. If a robot can be pushed or pulled away from the Rolling Goal, while still in contact with the playing field surface, without causing the Rolling Goal to come away with the robot, the robot is not in possession of the Rolling Goal. Conversely, if the Rolling Goal can be pulled away similarly, without cause the robot to move/come away with the Rolling Goal, the Rolling Goal was not possessed.

[Wil Wheaton]

Since I don't believe the game rules otherwise refer to "possessing a rolling goal", is this meant to refer to the language in <SG8>? In other words, "Robots may not possess any of the Rolling Goals at any time except during the End Game." - Coyote Robotics

Yes, this is the correct interpretation

[Wil Wheaton]

Please clarify this. I think a better definition is that the cart is not possessed if there is any direction such that the cart can be pulled and it freely separates from the robot. Otherwise, when we push the cart, the robot is moving and the "ROLLING GOAL remains in approximately the same position relative to the robot." - which would be possession under this definition. If the cart is against the wall and we try and lever it out, we are moving the cart, it is constrained in two directions and is considered possession under this rule. If the cart is constrained in four directions, it is possessed.

The description you give above is the test that the referees will use when assessing possession.

i.e. is there a way to pull either the robot or the goal, without lifting either, that cause them to come away from each other freely.

[Wil Wheaton]

Your new definition still seems unclear. You specifically say in the new definition of possessing a baton that a robot pushing a boaton is not possessing it. What about a robot pushing a goal? It is difficult from the definition to determine what would or would not be legal while attempting to push a rolling goal to a desired location on the field.

Simply pushing a goal is not possession. If the robot were to immediately back up, would the goal stay where it is? If so, the goal is not "possessed"

[Wil Wheaton]

We would like further clarification on this definition, if possible, as it relates to the following scenarios:
1) A robot interacts with a rolling goal, and the robot moves. The rolling goal moves, remaining in approximately the same position relative to the robot - We understand this to be "possession"
2) A robot interacts with a rolling goal, but the robot and goal remain stationary. However, they are interacting in such a way that if the robot were to back up or spin, the goal would also move, remaining in approximately the same position relative to the robot. Is this "possession"?
3) This is the same scenario as #2, but in this case, a member of the opposing alliance (robot #2) pushes the original robot (robot #1). The goal moves, remaining in approximately the same position relative to robot #1. Is this "possession"?

Many thanks!

In all three cases, if there is a way to visualize pulling away either the rolling goal or the robot, without lifting either, and have them come away from each other cleanly, the goal is not in the possession of the robot.

In case 3, you should also keep in mind rule <G10>. Actions of the opposing alliance cannot cause your alliance to incur a penalty.

[Raj]

The updated definition of possession states that: as the ROBOT moves or changes orientation (e.g. backs up or spins in place), the ROLLING GOAL remains in approximately the same position relative to the robot. To clarify this description, must the goal stay stationary for all of the robot's movements? For example, can the goal be contained on three sides? Theoretically, if the robot backed up, the rolling goal would not move. However, if the robot spun in place, the goal would move similarly. Is this considered possession?

Answered with #5 in this section.