[45Auto]

I can't see FIRST endorsing behavior where teams are given an option to completely disregard a rule that was a major part of the game just brazenly ignored without consequences.
At the very least it would cause an updated rule change.

Nice theory. I used to be equally naive. It's the Ref's call and there's nothing you can do about it.

In 2007 Rule G35 specifically prohibited robots from climbing the opposing alliances ramps. The rule specifically stated that doing so would be interpreted as an attempt to damage the opposing robot, which was not in the spirit of FIRST.

We lost our Regional by 2 points (fifth game of the series - we each had one win and there had been two ties) when an opposing robot climbed up our ramp and knocked off and tipped over our alliance robot that had been lifted for the 30 point bonus. We protested but it was over ruled. Got a huge "BOO" out of the whole arena when they announced that the results would stand. Anyone could see that it should have been a minimum of a 10 point penalty.

There was a big thread about it here. The opposing Drive Coach stated that it was obvious that their only chance was to risk the penalty. If he didn't stop the lift they lost.

FIRST has nothing to do with it, it all comes down to what the Ref at the regional decides. Each team will make it's own decision on whether risking a 3 point penalty to win a game is worth it. I don't see this years "Safety Zone" rule being any different than Rack-n-Roll's "Can't Climb Opposing Ramps" rule.

2007 Rule G35: