Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stu Bloom
I believe the central issue surrounding this entire debate is - how do you determine "intent"? For any action on the field that is clearly covered by the written rules it is obvious those rules should apply. Unfortunately it would be impossible for the GDC and rules committee to foresee every circumstance of this (or any) game, and even if they could there would still be some issues subject to interpretation. I am not, nor do I know of anyone who is, capable of reading another's mind, so in those cases we can only make our best judgment based on what we observe (in current AND prior matches). It is unfortunate that some judgment calls (that IMO should reflect the Head Ref's interpretation of the rules) will always have to be made. AND the GP thing to do is to go along with the call and NOT whine and complain that it was unfair (Believe me, all of us referees are doing the best job we can).
Bill, let me address your scenario, first from an engineering perspective. If a team is utilizing a strategy that includes ascending the ramp and their robot is "tipsy" then IMHO their robot has a design flaw.
Now, to address the strategy - If my team's strategy includes defending our position on the platform/ramp AND trying to keep other robots off then I think we have a valid reason for waiting on the platform then defending our position when challenged. I do not believe that I can envision every strategy that a team could pursue in this game, but I DO know of at least one (and I suspect there are more) that would require a robot to remain on the opponents platform and keep other bots from ascending. (Our team DOES have such a strategy in our arsenal, but I am not at liberty to divulge the details). Don't forget that the opponents platform is also a great place to park and lob balls into the 3-point goal.
|
Stu, you are missing the original post. It addresses sitting on the ramp and waiting only for the "tipsy" robot to ascend. If you are blocking/challenging all robots trying to ascend, I will give you "no intent". However, this strategy specifically addresses waiting for the "tipsy" robot. If it is your strategy to only push against the "tipsy" one, I believe intent has been shown. You are selecting the robot "most likely" to tip over in your defensive actions.
If you are merely sitting still, and the "tipsy" robot drives into you and tips itself -- no call.
You can't be saying that because a robot has a "design flaw" it is fair game to tip over? What other design flaws can allow us to ignore the rules? These could be strategy points!