[jonathan lall]

That is exactly why intent should be factored in; otherwise, the whole reason the goaltending rule exists is perverted, and I'll explain why. First of all, regarding judging intent*, refs in athletic sports do it all the time -- it's a part of the game -- and so do FIRST ones, even though they may be officially instructed otherwise (I cite the example of tipping other robots). It's pretty reasonable to say that if both robots are fighting over the ball, the intent of Redabot is not to block shots (this is a judgement the ref can safely make, and if there is an argument everyone must remember a ref's call is final). Therefore, no penalties should IMO be counted and the human player(s) should cower in shame for wasting six shots and/or trying to cause the opponent to get penalties. This is not the way FIRST refs are instructed to call it, and I wouldn't argue it with an official should it happen to me; all I'm saying is that I don't believe it should be this way.

Here's what happens when the rules are interpreted exactly as they are written: Looking at <G21>, the ball is considered part of both robots, because they are both manipulating it. According to <G20>, blocking one's own shots results in penalties (in addition to of course, blocking the opponent's). Therefore both teams get -60 penalties, because there is no mention of intent in the rules.

The intent to goaltend in Redabot was not there. Giving penalties to the shooter's team is absurd (and isn't practiced by refs anyway, regardless of whether they are supposed to). Furthermore, Bluabot is forcing a penalty upon the opponent, which is neither G nor P in my book. By such logic, I could place my robot in front of my own corral in auto mode in order to disqualify the robot I know comes streaking down the side full-speed. This is not GP in my book.



* I should note that 'the Blue Alliance throwing balls toward their mobile goal' is a judgement of intent by the ref. How does (s)he know that the human player was throwing a ball at his/her own goal and not simply directly at a robot? Since the ref won't call a ball thrown at a robot in open field goaltending, the ref is judging the intent of the human player in order to ascertain whether or not to award a penalty.