Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

If I hit you on my way to getting to the Castle, and I did not go out of my way to hit you, then it is not a G11 violation. The purpose of the action is to push you out of the way so that I can get to the castle. The purpose of the action is not to cause a G28 violation.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

I think the possibility of the "Running around to intentionally cause other robots to get penalties" is explicitly banned in the rules. So no, two or three red robot's in blue's courtyard wouldn't be able to run around intentionally bopping the defender in the last 20 seconds for points.

That being said....the parking strategy is interesting.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

From my opinion, the spirit of the rule is (you have to let your opponents have unfettered access to attempt to capture your castle. So if you see an opposing robot coming at you, and you know that contact will give you a penalty, you have to move. This could be clarified, but to me the intent seems clear.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

This game again...

IMO, red isn't mind its own business.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

I'm not seeing the issue here - this reads, to me, like the GDC saying "don't plan on running into a defending robot during the last 20 seconds for the purpose of drawing a penalty per G28, as doing such is a violation of G11."

However, it says/implies nothing at all about contact with a defending robot in pursuit of a legitimate game objective. From the way I've seen these rules called before, there's no way doing that would be ruled a violation of G11 - if anything, the defending robot would likely still receive a G28 as, even without explicit action, their positioning forces robot-robot contact with any robot attempting to challenge or scale.

Yes, this is a judgment call by the refs, but I don't think it's a difficult one to make and am not worried at all about it.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

I believe that with that way that the rule is written: G28 During the final twenty (20) seconds of TELEOP, ROBOTS in their COURTYARD may not contact an opponent ROBOT. If a robot is parked then and they are subsequently moved, then they are not in violation of G28 because they were not the ones who made contact. And in that scenario there would also be no G11 penalty because the intent of the robot who moved the other was not to draw a G28 but rather to gain access to the Batter.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

2012 bridge rules come to mind.

I did not FORCE you to commit a foul by me running into you. You were inhibiting my playing of the game and you had the opportunity to move and chose not to.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

The wording of G11 is important; BLUE's goal in this scenario has to be to draw the foul. The specific phrasing of the blue box seems to suggest that BLUE would get a G11 if they hunt down RED for the sake of contact in the last 20 seconds. Ultimately, whether G11 or G28 should be called is at the discretion of the REFEREES, as all potential G11 cases are. If RED decides to park in front of the BATTER (which is the proper spelling, not sure why this whole thread decided to go with BATTEN), and BLUE very carefully attempts to drive around RED to make their climb but ultimately bumps RED anyway, I don't see how you could call a G11 instead of a G28. Similarly, if BLUE attempts to shove RED out of the way, that would definitely be a G11, as I interpret it.

However, it is evident to me that the manual doesn't make this as clear as it could; this usually ends up being the case with subjective rules. A Q&A submission should definitely clear things up.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

the only reason I would see the point to block a batten would to be to stop 1
of 3 robots that can all scale from scaling. Stopping a scaling bot will -15 pts other alliance + no capture pts for ether team. Rather than gaining 5 pts with a challenge bot

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

Contact is a noun, and you are correct in saying that G28 is not a proper sentence. It should read "come into contact with".

As much as I agree with this sentiment, it should still be officially be cleared up. Less mess later on.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

The argument that G11 doesn't apply because "We're not trying to draw a foul, we're trying to achieve [some other game objective]" is certainly persuasive, but it's just not as solid as I'd like something to be in this case. It's a defense that could be used for hitting an opposing robot almost anywhere in the courtyard. "We were trying for the drawbridge to finish off the breach and they were in our way, but then we realized we couldn't and went back for the challenge instead." That's probably a little too Machiavellian to actually turn up in a match if it's not true, but still.

Anyways, I feel like it leaves too much guess work for the referees, when you could cover it by adding a line to the match flow rule about impeding access to the tower in the last 20. But the GDC has been opposed to overly specific wordings recently, so they may in fact leave it as is and go with the intent-heavy ruling of G11.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

I see what your getting at now.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

And there's the two meanings that are relevant to how G28 gets ruled.

Also defense makes perfect sense if the defending alliance is already not going to get a CAPTURE and wants to deny a CAPTURE to the opponents. Or if the defending robot can't cross DEFENSE and can't even CHALLENGE, then denying even a CHALLENGE would be a net benefit.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

I understand the concern but don't think it's such a problem, especially since situations like this have cropped up in lots of recent games.

In 2013, for example, according to the equivalent rules it would not be legal to push a robot that was over the height limit out of their defensive zone to force them to incur a penalty. However, I saw several instances where that precise thing happened because there was no way to proceed down-field without doing so, and not once was the pushing robot called for forcing the opponent to take a penalty. Similarly, nudging an opposing robot into your pyramid in an attempt to get in position to climb was never called a foul, either.

There are other examples from other years, all along a similar line. I think a good way to parse it is to just apply G11 recursively - forcing an opponent to take a penalty is a violation of G11, but then so is forcing an opponent to force you to take a penalty in the course of valid gameplay. I doubt they'll change the wording of the rule, given that it hasn't been a problem in the past.

Re: G28 + G11 seems broken
 

Speaking as your friendly Defense expert, I'll say clearing this up is VERY important. The rule now can be read to allow a robot to park in front of their tower, take their hands off the controls, and not incur the penalty. If GDC intends this to mean that you cannot impede the movement of a robot to the tower in the courtyard in the last 20 seconds, then they should say that.

Clarity is important on rules. Anyone remember that q&a last year that really restriced helping other teams under material usage rules? Anyone remember the debates about how to reasonably interpret that? I do. And I also remember GDC clearing it up a few days later with relatively few changes to wording.

Doesn't usually take much to make the intent clear.