[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by interpretTHIS

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.

This isn't what the words of the rule say - this is an asinine interpretation of them. The rule is black and white - strategies aimed at the... inhibition... by tipping - the strategy has to be to cause a tip. That's what the word "by" is for in the rule. It is not "if tipping occurs when the strategy is defense" - the strategy has to be the illegal action. It's plainly clear from the wording of the rule, that the entire sentence is one clause and not two, that it is not "if you execute strategy, and then this happens, it's a red card".