Is this goaltending?
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...tid=2123&stc=1
The rules, and Dave's explanation of the rules
clearly say that this is goaltending, because the ball is in downward flight toward a goal, thrown by a human, and hits a robot in the way. A ref who calls it by the book calls goaltending, a ref who attempts to determine the thrower's intent may have a tougher time doing so--in either case, it's a farcical situation. Do we expect that the refs will call this one goaltending, or do we expect that the refs will make a judgement call, and say, no, this was a stupid fluke and was not intended as a scoring play?
The real problem here is that the rules don't call for a resolution to this situation that exists in accordance with common sense. Our much-vaunted anti-laywering is of no help to us here, because common sense dictates that the refs ignore this "goaltending", and let the play stand. The rule, however, demands a penalty, which would simply serve to demonstrate the inadequacy of the rule--what if this happened in a "critical" match (say the Championship finals), affecting the outcome?
We say that streamlining the rules is a good thing, and to an extent it is; but when the rules leave situations such as this open to debate--and despite the firm letter of the law, these rules are clearly open to debate, as evidenced by the discord in these threads--the rule becomes useless and indeed counterproductive.
(N.B. I really don't care what Jonathan had to say above--that's not relevant to my post in the slightest.)