Is this Legal?

[katsauga]

is it legal to put a frisbee on another robot to earn them penalties for too many disks held?

[GaryVoshol]

Yes, but then search the Q&A for a recent item regarding G30 and G18-1. If you do it so it looks like a strategy, you might get a yellow card.

Now ask yourself why you want to even think about doing this?

[ksafin]

This shouldn't even be considered...

Gracious Professionalism?

[waialua359]

is it legal to put a frisbee on another robot to earn them penalties for too many disks held?
I'd spend more time and efforts on actually building a robot to win matches than to make your opponents lose as the primary strategy.

[katsauga]

it isn't the main goal, just a thought

[katsauga]

it could be a way to win, even if our shooter fails out

[GaryVoshol]

Yes, but then search the Q&A for a recent item regarding G30 and G18-1. If you do it so it looks like a strategy, you might get a yellow card.
Sorry, I got a couple of Team Updates and Q&A's mixed up, going just by memory. It's not a yellow card, but it is a technical and the other alliance won't get a penalty.
G18-1
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


Now ask yourself why you want to even think about doing this?

Given the ineffectiveness of this strategy and how it goes totally against GP, the other part of my answer deserves being repeated and emphasized.

[karomata]

Yes, it does not follow gracious professinalism, and it is not very moral, but we all have to expect to see it happen. Same thing with teams that will hang out around the base of the pyramid, and wait for opposing robots to come within range so that they can score a penalty. Everyone does it, so we might as well expect it, but it is a definant gray area in the rules.

[Kidney]

I would think that one through. Not necessarily a prime example of Gracious Professionalism or Coopertition.

[bardd]

G18-1
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


100% illegal.
Teams have used strategies against this rule (this rule has been in every manual as far as I remember) and have not been penalized, but these strategies were generally staying at a safe zone and "accidentally" bumping into opposing robots as they pass by, and were due to other strategies failing and were not designed for. If you design your robot to throw frisbees at opposing robots, you will probably be penalized.
Also, while a strategy like this might get you high up the ranking board, but it will not earn you the respect of other teams around you. I suggest trying something else.

[rellimcire]

Yes, it does not follow gracious professinalism, and it is not very moral, but we all have to expect to see it happen. Same thing with teams that will hang out around the base of the pyramid, and wait for opposing robots to come within range so that they can score a penalty. Everyone does it, so we might as well expect it, but it is a definant gray area in the rules.

It's not a gray area. I have seen an alliance red carded b/c one member purposely caused a member of opposing alliance to repeatedly foul. To fight and strategize so that opponents are forced into bad decisions so they might foul, no problem. But to purposely intend multiple fouls, red card. In the red card match I refer to robot 1 contacted robot 2 in an illegal area, giving robot 1 a foul. But then robot 2 purposely continued to contact robot 1 to cause more fouls. Robot 2 and their alliance were red carded.

[Ideal_Nerd]

no you will be penalised if the ref thinks it looked intentional

[bardd]

no you will be penalised if the ref thinks it looked intentional

If you have a mechanism designed to get other robots overloaded with frisbees, the head ref will consider it intentional.