View Single Post
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-04-2013, 09:41
DjScribbles DjScribbles is offline
Programming Mentor
AKA: Joe S
FRC #2474 (Team Excel)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Niles MI
Posts: 284
DjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to beholdDjScribbles is a splendid one to behold
Re: A "Dangerous Situation"

Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Miles View Post
I think that Rule 18-1 has been (in Michigan) considered violated only in such glaringly obvious cases such as this - I don't believe I've ever seen it called at either of the events I volunteered at (one of which where I was a referee) or at the third and fourth where I was merely a spectator.
I don't disagree with your interpretation entirely, but I feel even the situation described above can be given enough credible reason to avoid the 18-1 penalty; a robot pushing another robot into a pyramid can easily be justified as a defensive pinning maneuver.

Personally, my feeling is that 18-1 is too severe and narrow to accomplish its goal (as I interpret it). Attempting to assign a technical foul based on intent of an action is far too difficult to judge accurately enough to enforce the rule by assigning technical fouls.

As written, a forced rule violation that would receive a technical foul creates a 40pt swing in the match based on the referee's ruling. There is no middle ground where Red forced Blue to violate a rule with motives beyond generating foul points; in this case, even though the penalty was forced upon blue, they are still penalized despite their inability to avoid it (by the letter of the rules).


I feel like the intent of G18-1 would be better stated as follows:
"Strategies that result in forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of the game, rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

Violation: Technical Foul if the sole intent of the strategy was to force a rules violation"

Add a blue box on G30 stating "With respect to G18-1, G30 will supersede, except in cases where the violating ROBOT is prevented from escaping contact (for example, a second opposing robot holding them in place or pushing them into contact)."

Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but the intent of the rules seems to be to prevent people from being penalized unavoidably, but not to give them a protective bubble.