Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer26
It does seem, though, that the TECHNICAL FOUL called on 1114s alliance in SF1-2 at ONTO would have been reduced to a FOUL by this rule change.
Errant blue TRUSS shot lands in red ROBOT and is immediately ejected seems like a FOUL and not a TECHNICAL FOUL, by my reading of this change.
I agree that refs seem to be really reluctant to dish out POSSESSIONs to HERDing ROBOTs of an ALLIANCE matching the colour of the BALL. They seem to be much more frequently dishing out the G12 foul for HERDing or TRAPping and opponent's BALL. I don't understand why this is.
|
I think this example displays that the onus will be on the offending team to ensure that the action is viewed as inconsequential. What you will see when reviewing the infraction is that even if it was deemed unintentional, the robot then (possibly unintentionally) drops the ball in such a way that their robot is positioned in between the ball and the incoming robot. They also then proceed to play active defense (the correct move given the rules at the time).
However I view any possession that significantly slows a cycle as consequential, regardless of the score. I would argue that going forward, it may be in the best interest for the robot causing the infraction to actually step away from the play to ensure that the ref sees that the unintentional possession of the ball did not give them a competitive advantage.
You are definitely still at the mercy of the ref.
Here's a link to the video at the time of the infraction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...vxVzpyfks#t=95