[MrJohnston]

You are also talking about a set of rules about which there has been a lot of difficulty this season. We also have a full court shooter and found that G30, G22 and G18-1 were called differently at every event we attended - and were generally inconsistent at each event (including at Championships). They calls have varied so much, that I have seen something one match be called a technical on the defending bot, then, when the exact situation arises in another, it is a technical against the FCS. I have been somewhat privvy to discussions about this rule amongst referees and have learned that they disagree (yes, even different head referees) as to how several scenarios should be called. From what I can tell, most referees recognize the ambiguity in the rules and, frankly, hate the G18-1 rule. The best bet is to talk to referees before competition and get clarification as much as possible.

Example of ambiguity:
Defender bot puts up 80" blocker. FCS cannot shoot over it. FCS loads hopper and driver to the autoline. Blocker stays in front of FCS, but does not have the power to push back. FCS crosses autoline, pushing blocker across in the process. FCS then shoots from loaded hopper.

G22, says that the blocker cannot be across the autoline - period.
G18-1 says that the FCS cannot have a strategy with the sole purpose of causing a tech.

Now what? The blocker was shoved across teh autoline - maybe it could have avoided it, but it certainly was not intentional and not even under its own power. Does it really deserve a tech? At teh same time, if the blocker were 20" shorter, there would be no issue. Does the attachement of, say, a pool noodle suddenly make a defender robot immune to being shoved out of the way? At teh same time, teh FCS did force the blocker across the line - it employed a strategy that drove the other bot to a foul. However, the rule states that it cannot employ a strategy with the SOLE purpose of drawing the foul - it did go up and shoot. It could not shoot before, as it was being blocked. Are we going to make it illegal for the robot to try to find an open shot?

On Archimedes, this situation was ruled like this: No foul against either side - the defender has the right to defend and the FCS has the right to find an open shot. However, once across teh autoline, the tall bot must immediately return to its autozone, lest it be called for a technical. However, even on Archimedes, we had one match in which the head referee told us that if we (FCS) were to persist in doing that, we'd be charged with a technical - this was resolved after a long discussion.

Other questions: What if, after crossing the auto line, the FCS were to shoot and the blocker, due to its tall (and now illegal) height, were to inadvertently block a disk or two?

In other words, let's be kind to the refs on this - the real issue is an ambiguity in the rules.