Thread: 2012 MSC
View Single Post
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2012, 18:42
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2012 MSC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Adams View Post
G25 doesn't say you must contact the bridge for the violation to be incurred. It implies that there are ways to interfere with balancing that don't involve contacting the bridge. The balance attempt was clearly interfered with by 67, by definition of interfere. Though that doesn't mean it changed the outcome, its certainly enough to make a case for G25.
It's true that [G25] doesn't require actual contact for interference.1 However, if the interference was directly caused by an opponent's action (even if there were other direct causes), [G44] is triggered and [G25] is waived. It doesn't matter that 548 didn't intend to fall on 67; only that they did, that the bridge was interfered with, and that 548 was a direct cause of the interference.

1 Thought experiment: a robot has an earthquake machine and directs it at the floor to unseat the opponents' bridge. [G25] would seem to be appropriate.