View Single Post
  #189   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-03-2014, 16:54
Racer26 Racer26 is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Beaverton, ON
Posts: 2,229
Racer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2014 Waterloo Regional

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Wallace View Post
Paul said it best, while we were waiting for the result: hate the rules, not the refs. The refs called this one correctly by the rules.

Adam is right (see the previous page) -- common sense should come into this at some point.
Yeah, its situations like this that the G24-analog in various years has been among my least favourite rules. For years, I've thought its wording should be changed to have some wiggle room such as "intentional or consequential..." to allow refs to simply ignore minor damaged robot bits dragging on the floor without requiring them to call it. To me, the intent of the rule is to control robot design, not penalize broken bits.

Alternatively, design the game so that doing so can't be strategically advantageous.