Quote:
Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU
but the red card is given when damage or incapacitation occurs, so the robot that can flip back does not meet the criteria
|
Yes, that is correct ( I had to read the rule again)
Quote:
Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping,
entanglements, or deliberately putting a BOULDER on an opponent’s ROBOT are not allowed.
|
This is Violated regardless of whether the robot can right itself or not
Quote:
Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy,
RED CARD
|
This specifies the punishment, Yellow card for the violation, but a Red card if incapacitation occurs.
I really hate this rule, especially in this game. It should be clear to teams that tipping is a risk in this game, which leaves them with the options to either design a robot that doesn't tip, or design a robot that can right itself. This rule seems to reward teams who did not take this into account.
I would much rather have this rule read Yellow card for strategies aimed at inhibition (though those means) and Red card tor strategies with the intent to incapacitate. I don't like that this has to be an eyeball test, but I like it more that giving a yellow card to a team who flipped a well designed robot, and a red card to one who flipped a robot with a design flaw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me
There is no reason a robot that is able to self right would not still draw a red card in this scenario. The rule is against tipping robots, not against keeping robots tipped for the duration of the match.
|
That is how I remembered it too, but per G24 the red card is given if harm or incapacitation occurs.
Quote:
Violation: FOUL and YELLOW CARD. If harm or incapacitation occurs as a result of the strategy,
RED CARD
|