[jonathan lall]

Dave, it would appear that we are of different camps with regard to how we believe refs should call games. I take a more judge-style approach that asks refs to make rulings often (for example the intent call), which have the potential to be inconsistent, whereas you (I believe) are saying that refs are there more to be conduits of what is written. The problem is, that I don't think what is written about goaltending addresses the above situation to my, or any ref's satisfaction. If the ref were to judge intent, however vague the rules were about this type of situation, it would not matter, because assuming the intent was caught on to, the ruling would be fair. I did not say what I believed the purpose of the goaltending rule was. In order to further this, now I will:

The goaltending rule is in place to prevent un-GP shot-blocking devices and strategies that would arise without such a rule.

I make no claim to have any knowledge of what it actually was (I'd have to ask someone like Dave Lavery to find out the actual answer!), but I think through inference that much can be figured out.

Originally Posted by dlavery

Determination of whether the ball is being thrown towards the mobile goal or not is a straightforward decision. Either it is heading toward the goal, or it isn't. The presence or absence of an opposing robot is irrelevant to the determination.

I think you misinterpreted here. I am using an example to show that while you are eliminating the variable of the robot driver's intent by saying you won't factor that into a goaltend call, the human player is given free reign over whipping balls at robots to cause penalties. In effect, by saying "the driver is guilty of goaltending whether he meant to or not," you are absolving the human player of all responsibility for any malicious action he takes.

Originally Posted by dlavery

If, by any reasonable estimation by any reasonable person, the ball is heading toward a goal on the field (please don't be a Clinton and make me define the term "toward"!!!), then it is heading toward the goal. If the ball is obviously going into an area of the field where there is no goal, then it is not heading toward a goal - whether there is another robot there or not.

You defined "toward" in the very next paragraph. So what if a human player intends to hit the robot which is not in the way of the goal (i.e. he could hit the goal but goes for the robot beside it)? Since the ref doesn't want to be a Clinton, he will call a penalty and say the ball was heading toward the goal, because maybe it missed by only two feet, and thus might have clipped PVC. According to his instructions, he must make this call. I should note that I have seen this happen before in a match without a call, because the ref judged the intent.

Originally Posted by dlavery

This whole discussion illustrates exactly why the referees need to stick to strict interpretation of the rules.

Agreed. If you think I am trying in any way to criticize the efforts of refs, you are sorely mistaken. Still, refs and rules are accountable, and reform is a neccesary part of any rules body. I think what I'm saying makes sense, and that is all I'm saying.

Originally Posted by dlavery

Attempts to determine a team's intent is, by definition, subjective and open to multiple interpretations. Observable facts are not.

Which is of course where you and I differ. I believe refs should use their judgment to determine call or no-call. Objectivity is overrated as I see it, and I think refs, having the final say and all, can handle judgment calls without fear of annoying high school students whining about their calls. I think in the same way that they are instructed to think of "toward" as you said, they can successfully be given a guideline to determine intent. Your approach eliminates this variable completely, which I admit is the next best thing, but I think it has its flaws; it'd be silly if handballs in soccer were always called, and I think calling a penalty on someone's actus reus alone (namely having your robot near the goal) shouldn't happen.

Originally Posted by dlavery

In this example, the facts are clear. The rules are clear. The intent of the team is indeterminate, and therefore irrelevant. You may not like it, but those are the rules.

We have paraded around my bias; to you the rules are clear. To me, they are not. Maybe that means I'm too stupid to figure them out, but judging by the fact that this YMTC exists, I'd say that they may not be as clear as you might believe.

I actually don't mind the goaltending rules as they are that much, and yes I realize they are the rules. I said that already. That doesn't mean we can't debate them and possibly work toward reforming them, does it?