[gp2013]

[quote=interpretTHIS;1574819In 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.[/QUOTE]

Yet in North Bay, we were the offensive robot and the defensive robot was flipped after repeated hits on us and we received a red card whilst trying to drive across the court to cross the defences back to the neutral zone. Therefore, inconsistent.