[AmyPrib]

Everyone keeps talking about safety being the concern.
In re-reading Gordon's post, I don't think he mentioned they made the call due to safety. He said that it was a "rule violation" based on the chain/cascade rule (?) and from what I gather, called a 30pt penalty because of a robot interfering with another in the loading zone. Disabling is the result of a safety issue... a 30pt penalty is the result of a G15 violation.

If safety were the concern, then one would figure that almost anytime you interfere with a robot in a HP loading zone, it should be disabled, because any interference there could cause an unsafe condition. So why have all the examples in Update 4 or a 30pt penalty at all in this case...Now the refs have to decide whether or not to penalize for being unsafe, or for interfering, or both... the penalties are different in each case though. Yes -it's a tough job those refs have! They are volunteers and give us their time. But it would seem like someone in that group would have come across Update 4 in their preparation for becoming a ref.

So this is why I ask, if someone that made that call could clarify. Was it called because of safety.....which if it were, disablement instead of 30pts should have been the penalty... or was it a penalty solely based on the G15 violation....I am not saying that the Update was definitely overlooked, but if it were looked at, how was the conclusion made, that even though it clearly states this exact case results in no penalty, that a 30pt penalty was given?

I am not pointing any fingers, or asking anyone to say they were wrong, or trying to beat a dead horse. I am trying to figure out why this happened (which I personally don't think is too much to ask), and how it will be called in the future for others, because this could very well happen in the future to anyone and would like to know an official take on it. I also hope that nobody is offended by the questions I ask, it's simply looking for feedback on what may have been an incorrect call. It's slightly different when you have inconsistencies on aggressive play, or intentional tipping, etc, because it's up to different interpretations... but if a rule clearly states something, then it's not a judgement call and one might have a hard time justifying why a call was made.

This particular case has no impact on me directly. But with seeing all the controversy talked about lately on inconsistent calls, I am wondering how the rule update 4 was not followed. There may very well be something I'm overlooking, but that's why I'm asking. It could have been a pure mistake. People/Refs make mistakes, and we live with it. But with all the hoopla about G15 early on before competition started, one would hope that everyone knows those rules in and out by now.