Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald
You seem to have taken personally something which was not. I apologize.
|
I am not offended - no worries here. But when one apologizes, it is normal/genuine to do so w/o caveats
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald
My point was that feeling should not get in the way of fact, and if in fact the strategy is even potentially legal, it is better to plan for the eventuality than to dismiss it. And yes, that is absolutely something I would like my kids to learn.
|
"Moving or positioning a Basketball to gain advantage is considered actively controlling. Examples are..." The bizarre "protect the balls in the corner" strategy is not enumerated in the examples but that does not make it legal. The GDC can't cover every crazy possibility, nor should they have to. In my opinion, the intent of this rule is beyond question. If one (with intent, not accidentally) put 4 balls in the corner and parks in front of them, you are controlling them - period. Further I think most refs would red card (per G45) a robot for repeating this offense.
Feelings (aka integrity, sportmanship and ethics) play a unique role in the engineering world. It is simply not possible for a customer to create a SOW or reqs that cover every possible design flaw or feature. It is ethical to point this out to the customer and (if there no cost/schedule impact) to act in accordance with the clarified intent of the design. This is the proper path for an ethical young engineer - might as well start teaching them (and setting the example) now.
This question is on point and the GDC did NOT choose to reply. As I said above they can't comment on every silly scenario.
Q.
Do balls positioned behind a robot but not touching it, previously put there by the robot or an inbounder, count as being controlled?
A. Hypothetical game situations are highly context dependent. It is not practical for us to provide definitive answers for all individual situations which may be presented.
This question is also on point and the GDC reply is definitive (says my son the lawyer ;o). "Intent" is key.
Q.
Is G45 violated if a robot herds balls into their alley and waits nearby so if/when an opposing robot attempts to retrieve said balls they can contact them resulting in a foul as per G44?
A. Yes. It could also be considered trapping depending on how the strategy is executed.