Quote:
Originally Posted by bobl
This is quite a hornets nest. I have always felt that high speed ramming/tipping is not a defensive strategy but a strategy to disable/damage.
|
Purposely damaging/tipping another's robot is unacceptable and against the rules. That being said, defense and ramming is part of the game. Build your robot robustly
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobl
Consider a robot traveling the length of the field at full speed to hit (supposedly to defend) an opposing alliance member. Is this good defense or is it trying to cause damage? I am not saying that aggressive defense should be penalized, you can be aggressive without damage. This is way it is such a hard rule to enforce, was there intent?
|
Distance traveled is (should not be) the deciding factor. Penalties are (and should be) situational. A full field charge can be far less damaging the, say, a 'little push' on a robot that is almost tipped on the polycarbonate barriers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobl
Think about the events you've attended. When a robot crossing a defense carrying a boulder pushed another boulder through as well did the referees pause to think "Was that intentional? Was the driver able to see that there was a boulder in his path?" No. They assess a penalty and move on.
|
Intent is not part of those rules, but is part of the 'vigorous robot-to-robot interaction' rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobl
The referees have enough to do already without having to make this determination.
One last thought, Remember Gracious Professionalism. Act like your grandmother is watching and think about how you would feel if it was your robot was put out of commission.
|
I'll say this again. Gracious professionalism should be used to measure your own actions, not someone else's. If my robot was 'put out of commission' by a legal hit (even a full field charge) I'd look at my design to see how I can make it more robust.
BTW, I have had my robot 'put out of commission' that way.
