Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday
How about like this:
"Strategies aimed at interfering with a coopertition balance are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: Red Card"
|
That is a very arbitrary and almost impossible rule for the refs to enforce. What defines interfering?
-If a team goes to the coopertition bridge and then sits there but doesn't go up while their partner is waiting, is that interference?
-If a team accidentally touches the coopertition bridge while a balance attempt is going on, is that interference?
-If there is confusion about the coopertition bridge and three teams show up, the confusion is never cleared and the balance fails, is that interference?
I realize these are extreme examples, but the point stands that defining interference on an aspect of the game where both alliances are involved is going to result in "bad" calls. Intent is already very hard to determine with things like tipping and abusing fouls, which are between alliances. Previous games have proven that open-ended rules like this do not work well.