[Travis Hoffman]

What defines "THE WAY THE GAME WAS MEANT TO BE PLAYED"?

I'd say the RULES do. The opinions of FIRST or the game designers or anyone else mean NOTHING until those opinions have been incorporated into the official rules of the game. If they feel so strongly about a certain strategy's impact on the game, they can amend the rules to address it. Until then, let's not quash the creativity of teams seeking to find unique ways to play the game WITHIN THE RULES. By all means, please use these forums to educate people about obviously illegal strategies and also the risks involved with employing unique but legal strategies. But please don't use them to try and influence team's to play the game the way YOU THINK it should be played. There will be offense. There will be defense. Teams should be free to do whatever they feel gives them the best shot at success, and as long as they are operating within the rules and the boundaries of their conscience, that's fine.

If anything "bad" or "unusual" ever happens because a team chooses to employ a strategy that's legal according to the written word of the game, or a team does cross the line, that's what we have refs for - to make non-biased judgement calls in unique situations where their expertise is needed. Otherwise, let the teams play.

Instead of slapping a blanket statement of prohibition on each and every "non-standard" way of doing things, at least in the eyes of the status quo, let's react fairly and calmly each time a unique situation comes up during a match. That way, we may be more entertained and impressed by the truly one of a kind strategies our teams come up with. And let's also trust that if a team's legal strategy unintentionally causes damage to another or upsets another team, that the referees and the parties involved will employ GP to the fullest extent in trying to remedy the situation, as we've seen demonstrated so many times in the past.