[gail]

In response to an earlier comment that "intent" should be taken out of the rules, I strongly disagree. Intent is often the deciding factor in FIRST, just as in the real world.

Can you penalize a team who breaks a field component as a result of being pushed by another robot? Can you penalize a team for breaking a field component when something goes haywire on their robot? Or when they get a ball stuck under them and it pops? The answer to these question should be "no" because they did not intend to break the field component. FIRST anticipates these problems and tries to design components that can take a beating.

Teams that continually break a field component such as a ball because of a design problem (something sharp sticking out of their robot) deserve a warning and usually get one. The refs are excellent at making these calls.

As for entanglement, if a robot is designed with a net and another robot comes by with the purpose of preventing balls from entering that net, and in the process gets entangled with them, which robot should be penalized? The one who was designed with an entanglement problem, or the one who stuck their arm inside them, not to get entangled, but to prevent balls from dropping in?

Let's examine the implications of each call. If you write a rule which penalizes the robot with the net then other robots could win simply by getting entangled, even if done intentionally. This hardly seems equitable. If you penalize the robot that is playing defense against them and inadvertently gets stuck on them, then you effectively eliminate all defensive actions directed at that robot. This means all other robots on the field can have aggressive acts committed against them, but this one cannot for fear of disqualifying the aggressor. Is this equitable when the rules specifically state robots should be robust and designed to expect contact?

Now if a robot goes out with the SOLE intent of damaging a field component or getting entangled with another robot this is a different story and one which should not be considered lightly.

Any rule must be written to examine the "intent" of the teams. The refs are in a perfect position to assess the "intent" by watching round after round, asking pertinent questions and listening to the responses before making a decision. It is not for us to second guess their decision.