Quote:
Originally Posted by magnets
Team 1114 has every right to be upset about this. If the competition had happened the previous week, then the team breaking off their wing would have gotten a technical foul, which would have let 1114's alliance win. The GDC changed a rule a day before the competition started, and let teams like 1114 be the guinea pigs to test out the rules. The GDC should not be testing their rules, that were released before anybody had any time to think about them, on actual competitions. It makes zero sense that an added rule, designed to prevent and discourage robot damage and destruction, would penalize a team for being the recipient of "game play that results in damage", but the old rule does not.
|
I would like to interject here:
I don't think the issue has anything to do with the fact that 1241 were not given a technical foul. I personally believe they didn't deserve a 50pt penalty (nor any).
The issue is also not that the rule update was put out on a Thursday instead of a Tuesday. I believe everyone at the regional was aware of the new rules. It's also misleading to use the word 'guinea pigs', unless you consider every team competing at an event after a Tuesday rule update a 'guinea pig'. Rule updates exist because the GDC are not ominiscient - teams design, build, play in more imaginative ways than they could possibly have prepared for. (On a side point, I am curious as to how else you would 'test the rules'?)
The update to G27 has helped turned this game from Aerial Assault back to Aerial Assist, as highlighted by some great play at Waterloo.
The real issue is G24. I do not believe the wording of this rule matches the intent. At least, I do not believe it was GDC's intent to punish teams for violating this rule if it was forced inadvertedly from damage by another robot. Especially as it was wholly inconsequential to the outcome of the match.
The tragedy was that 1114 were punished, not that 1241 were not penalized enough.
EDIT: On second reading, I realize I may have mis-interpreted your point. I agree that the rules are wrong and I agree that the rule update did indadvertedly create this ruling, but I want to emphasise that the issue was that the rule update did not change G24, not that it changed G27/G28.