Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Johnson
As I type right now, I believe I have a reasonable theory. FIRST does not want clarity. When a team is just not going to be able to compete under a strict limit, they want to be able to look the other way. BUT but but, they don't want to make this an official policy because A) if team gets ridiculous with respect to the transformation time, they want to be able to rein them in and
B) they don't want to upset folks who will no doubt say, "if I knew I had X extra seconds above and beyond 60 , I would have designed a completely different robot that would have played on Einstein. Guaranteed!" I don't know if this the really the reason for the lack of clarification but it does seem to explain things.
Dr. Joe J. |
I think this is right on the nose. I'm a soccer referee, and there's a rule that this whole discussion is reminding me of - the rule that goalies can only hold on to the ball for 6 seconds. It says...
Quote:
An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
Controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession.
|
But what does "controls" mean? Does bouncing the ball, as most goalies do, count as "releasing possession"? These things are taught in referee classes, but not in the rulebook or to the public. But the main thing I was taught about that rule is that it should only be called in the most egregious circumstances, after multiple or outrageous violations.
It sounds a lot to me like G10 was intended to be somewhat similar.