Quote:
Originally Posted by akoscielski3
NOPE! G44 has the exception of G28. Also, the blue robot was not trying to get out of the way, and not trying to prevent the penalty. They directly caused it themselves. NOT the red alliance. There was not one time that 1038 tried to get away from the bridge, thus making the G44 become a FOUL and/or Tech Foul and/or RED Card.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto
I'm wondering what the criteria for "showing strategy" is?
I would argue, if a robot parks itself a foot away from the bridge, but isn't worried about getting called on a [G25] because they'll be protected by [G44], this would be exploiting [G44] and thus a violation of [G45].
That's my argument, but I'm more curious as to what criteria must be met to qualify as a "strategy to exploit [G44]".
|
This illustrates a good point about [G45]: what does it even mean? I don't think I can even articulate a hypothetical test that reliably distinguishes a [G44]-exploiting strategy from a legitimate one, based upon the evidence that referees can be expected to possess. Certainly FIRST has articulated no such thing either.
I don't think it's fair to call [G45] on a team that could have acted differently, but didn't, and therefore allowed a [G44]-excused violation to occur. That's like thoughtcrime.
For example, to use Michael's example above, how do we know that the intended result (of the "strategy") wasn't to influence some other aspect of gameplay? (The obvious one might be that they intended to block an opponent, rather than get pushed into the bridge.)
Instead, I think referees have to be very judicious in applying [G45], because it's as if they're making a very strong assertion about the motivation of a team's actions in the heat of competition. Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. Until we make the drivers wear
FMRI helmets,
1 I don't think this is something that can be called in cases where the on-field actions appear borderline.
1 Clinically speaking, that wouldn't even be enough.