I'm of the opinion that the rule is well-written already, but is being enforced as though it concerns intentional action rather than any action outside of normal game play. The solution would be to remind referees of the intent of the rule.
(edit - forgot to address before)
I believe the 10 point penalty is approriate, provided it is always assigned without ambiguity. When you tip an opposing robot (or entangle it to the point it cannot move), you're taking away it's ability to score points. To balance it out, you get disabled also, taking away your abilitity to score points. However, not all robots were created equal, it's possible that the offending bot can't score points as well as the one it knocked down. For that possibility, you get the 10 point penalty. Without the point penalty, it's a perfectly valid strategy to knock down any bot that's better than, despite your own disable. How GP would it be to tell your third alliance partner in the finals to knock down the #1 seed on the opposing alliance?
(/edit)
Plucking some juicy ideas to support this from the threads Dave mentioned:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
Tipping. A robot is in a defensive postion when it is physically between an opponent and the opponents intended scoring objects or a goal. A robot is in a offensive position when another robot is blocking its path to desired scoring objects or a goal. If a pushing/ shoving or pinning match ensues with two opponents in defensive/ offensive positions, and the rules listed above are not violated, and one or both robots are toppled, then no penalites will be called.
|
This idea applies very well to this years game. A lot of shoving occurs to keep bots away from loading zones - exactly what we're trying to stop, especially when it results in robots being damaged or tipped. Making the rules rather strict but including a clause like this would be the easiest way to say we don't want bots doing anything but playing the game.
And another quote from Ken,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
I think one of the biggest problems this year is the word 'intentional' in the rules. Its very much like the word 'premeditated' in the laws for 1st degree murder - its much harder to prove that someone planned or intended to do something ahead of time than it is to prove that they actually DID the thing.
|
Solution: clear off the word intentional but leave the same penalties to the ref's discretion if he/she believes it due to overly aggressive play. Something along the lines of it being a penalty
That is, the rule is already well-writen, but does need better enforcing. I'm confident referees can make the decisions just fine, but it seems that the rules are being enforced as though they concerned intentional behavior.
As for any ambiguity:
This post suggests showing videos of what earns penalties. This is a great way to solve the ambiguity problems, and would also serve to show the crowd what causes penalties. A good part of the time, the crowd has no clue why a penalty was called. At the start of the competition, right after the kickoff game animation (perhaps even part of it) can be examples of what is illegal, narrated somewhat like this:
"Howver, this is not a war. Teams must be wary not to damage other robots in play. Contact in the loading zone is dangerous, and will result in a 30-point penalty. Pushing a robot high, causing it to fall will result in disqualification. Ramming other robots at high speeds is illegal. Accidental tipping during defensive play, however, does not result in penalties," and so on, accomponied with short videos of the actions. The videos would show less obvious examples, such as tipping by pushing a tetra that as being held rather than the bot itself.