Quote:
Originally Posted by interpretTHIS
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.
|
Actually in this case the first engagement had not stopped. While it was true that during the engagement both bots tipped up from one another (creating an "A" shape with the "noses" touching), the "second" engagement you speak of was the offensive robot landing on the ground and the defensive robot landing on top of them (one side of the "A" fell before the other side did). In this case if offense were to back up then no flip would occur. However they drove forward (possibly due to being unable to see? Too many factors as to why)
Either way as I said, its about consistency. If you see the interpretation of the rule in this case to be correct then that's fine. However, you used the word consistent, which it is not. The calls on flipping have been all over the map. This is why there are so many threads about the subject.