A robot may possess 4 balls. Possession is when a robot controls a balls position relative to itself. However, based off of the manual and Q&A actions such as pushing through balls with convex structures is legal.
As suggested in the referee training video, a good test is to see if the balls stay in the same position relative to the robot.
However, does this ruling change based off the intent of a team?
Example 1: a team which is possessing 4 balls decides to pushes a ball using a convex area to an advantageous area (such as the loading zone). The team passes the turning test. Would this still be considered a legal possession because it does not violate the current rules?
Example 2: a team which is possessing 4 balls decides to pushes a ball using a convex area with the assistance of the field perimeter, allowing them to control where exactly the ball goes. Would this still be considered a legal possession because it does not violate the current rules?
Final Question: A vex U team decides to build 2 robots which latch onto each other. This does not violate entanglement because you cannot violate entanglement with your own robots. Is this correct?
Can the connected robots store more than the 4 balls assuming they individually pass the turning test. Or does this violate <g1>
These are both legal. We don’t want our referees to have to try and determine intent, nor do we want teams to have avoid balls as part of normal gameplay.
Each Robot is still limited to the possession of 4 balls. This does not change if they’re connected to their partner. Thus the two Robots could Possess 8 balls combined, but it must be clear that no more than 4 are in any given Robot at one time.
Pretend that the 8" rail and the 7.5 inch channel were cut in half or part of their own respective robots. This area would be convex, and it is not carrying/holding/controlling the movement of more than 4 Scoring Objects because it is not inside the robot or supporting this independently (similar to using a wall as a guide for balls). However, does this still count as possession even though game pieces move relative to a robot solely because of the actions of the alliance robot?
It’s difficult to give a blanket answer here due to the completely hypothetical nature of this question. That being said, this does not seem like possession because it seems as though neither Robot is in Possession of the Balls in question. However, without seeing the specific implementation it’s impossible to make a concrete ruling.