Quote:
Originally Posted by gp2013
I agree wholeheartedly. Consistency would go a long way toward managing expectations.
|
I don't agree at all if the consistent ruling would be to always protect the builder of a high CG robot from any kind of normal defense. From the number of reports coming in, I have to agree with the OP that it appears FIRST is doing just that.
This game had such potential - there has been unanimous praise for it from far and wide. But now that FIRST seems to be promoting the interpretation of Rule G24 to be that a single ref is allowed to assume that the intent of a team playing what most would call normal defense was to actually tip an already unstable robot? And then to allow that decision to potentially end a team's season? I think that breaks the game, and I am sad.
They tell us to expect "robust" interaction, and to build our robots "robustly". I guess "stable" is no longer a part of that directive.
I'm not about to quit FIRST, but this turn of events is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth, and my team hasn't even been affected by these rulings one way or another. However, I have personally witnessed it - at the last two events we attended, the same notoriously tippy robot benefited greatly from questionable red card calls in eliminations. It's starting to remind me of 2014 when teams had ball collectors extended beyond the frame perimeter and were just trying to play the game as it was designed, and then they drew a 50 point penalty when another robot would drive kamakazi-like into them and self-inflict damage inside their own frame perimeter. Just sad.