[Holtzman]

As the rules are currently written, my interpretation and reasoning are as follows.

1) Red 1 should be assessed a 50pt Tech Foul for extending continuously beyond 20" via G24. If the broken extension posed a safety hazard, they should be disabled, and receive an additional 20 pt foul via G3.

Originally Posted by G24

A ROBOT’S horizontal dimensions may never exceed 20 in. beyond its FRAME PERIMETER (see illustration in Figure 3-6).

Violation: FOUL. If continuous or repeated violations, TECHNICAL FOUL.

Originally Posted by G3

ROBOTS whose operation or design is unsafe are not permitted.

Violation: FOUL & DISABLED. If the issue is due to design: Re-Inspection.

One could argue that Blue shouldn't be able to force Red to take a foul by G14, but since Blue wasn't engaging in a strategic attempt to force red to take the foul, it does not apply.

Originally Posted by G14

Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

2) Blue 1 should be assessed a 50pt Tech Foul for causing damage inside the frame perimeter to Red 1 regardless of intent via G28.

Originally Posted by G28

Initiating deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside the vertical extension of its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. Generally, ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk.

A ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER may be penalized under this rule if it appears they are using that element to purposefully contact another ROBOT inside its FRAME PERIMETER. Regardless of intent, a ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER that causes damage to another ROBOT inside of its FRAME PERIMETER will be penalized, unless the actions of the damaged ROBOT are the catalyst for the damage.

One could argue that a single 20pt foul via G27 should be called or a 20pt G27 and a 50pt G28, but G27 covers aggressive or repeated violent actions. As blue was attempting to grab a ball, and wasn't actively engaging in any of the actions described in G27, I don't feel it applies.

Originally Posted by G27

Strategies aimed at and/or game play resulting in the damage, destruction or inhibition of opponent ROBOTS via actions such as high-speed or repeated, aggressive ramming, attachment, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed.

Violation: FOUL. If strategic, TECHNICAL FOUL. Potential YELLOW CARD.

For example, use of a wedge-like MECHANISM to flip ROBOTS would be considered a violation of G27.

MECHANISMS outside the FRAME PERIMETER are particularly susceptible to causing such damage and drawing this penalty and/or penalties associated with violations of G28. Teams are encouraged to be cautious in their use of such appendages when engaging in ROBOT to ROBOT MATCH play.

There is much room for interpretation in this years rules, and if I could throw out the rule book, and make a gut call, I'd say no foul for either team. Common sense dictates that there should be no possible interpretation where intentionally or unintentionally causing damage to your opponent can gain you an advantage, but as Mr. Lim points out, that is also one logical interpretation. The problem is that there seem to be so many logical interpretations, who knows what's correct. The only thing I know for sure is, if I was a ref, I'd be calling FIRST HQ for clarification... if a hypothetical situation like this ever were to happen.