Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me
"Defense" does not meet the definition of the quote above - it does not inhibit a robot through any of those methods, normally. It is only a "strategy" if the tipping is an intentional part of the defense. Under your logic, literally any time a robot tips over when someone is playing defense on that robot would result in a Red Card. Lots of teams would build robots very differently if that was the case!
|
If a strategy is employed in which the objective is to prevent a team from scoring, and to a reasonably astute observer, the execution of that strategy entails a risk of performing one of the prohibited actions of
G24, then
G24 may come into play.
In the specific case of this match, the previous interaction between the two teams at ~87s match time is further evidence that the drive team of the defending robot knew and understood the risks of playing defense in the manner that they played it. They rolled the dice twice, and lost the second time. The first roll was just the indication to an astute observer that they understood the implications of the risks associated with that particular action to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T3_1565
I mean waterloo qf1-1 we were in a pushing match that resulted in our opponent getting underneath our bumpers and then driving us from the secret passage to the front of the tower (defense 3) before we finally flipped (we are 13" high and have been almost vertical on the field wall without flipping) and that was not given any card at all.
...
The comparison between the two calls is the thing that is the most frustrating. Either call on there own is fine.
|
In the Waterloo case, the offensive robot was playing the game with the strategy to score in their tower, while the defensive robot was playing with the strategy to stop the offensive robot. Even after a previous engagement that almost ended disastrously for one or both teams, the defensive robot continued to engage in the same fashion, and wound up getting flipped. Had the offensive robot in this same scenario been flipped instead, I would have expected the defensive robot to receive a Red card. However, because the offensive robot's strategy didn't involve interaction with the defensive robot, and therefore couldn't have been aimed at flipping the defensive robot, no Red was awarded. It would seem that the interpretation of the rule in this case, was in fact, consistent.