Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ethulin
The rules are pretty clear on this. If they push the bot over the line and back away they the former backbot is no longer "prevented by an offensive ROBOT from crossing the field centerline". Therefore they will have the 5 point penalty assessed against it. The only thing preventing that team from getting back over is their own bot's inability to move, no one else. I am kinda sick of people saying anything that is defensive is not GP. The GP thing to do is to volunteer to help the team who's bot broke down fix it after the match, not to disregard a perfectly legitimate strategy.
This is where I draw the line: if a team is running a strategy that harms or is likely to harm another team's bot it is not GP. If a team is using the rules to their advantage then go ahead, I congratulate you on your ingenuity.
|
Well, some don't agree that this is a perfectly legal strategy of plan as outlined by the rules. Perhaps it's time for Q/A to specifically address this actual case.
This is not really a defensive play, persay. As always stated, nobody says Defense is un-GP. The perceived intent behind this strategy is to make your opponents score go to 0, while you sit back and watch, maybe? The rules basically tell you that playing defense on a would-be backbot does you absolutely no good. If one wants to think of this as a legit plan, ok. But I guess I don't understand the advantage of wasting all your time pushing a dead robot, rather than scoring offensively with your partners. To each his own.
If a robot is dead, it's likely that the dead bot could be damanged by the pushing, shoving, beating by the opponent to get it moved on the other side of the line. That is not acceptable and likely will be penalized for damage. I would hope they'd give up if it doesn't budge.
The question is cause of infraction. In G26, if the opponent is preventing you from becoming a backbot, the backbot doesnt' get penalized because they are not causing their own inability to get behind the line. Now if a dead bot is sitting there, they are fine. If the opponent pushes them back to the other side, the opponent caused the infraction, not the deadbot themselves. The alliance did not cause themselves to violate the rule, so if you interpret the rule that way, then no penalty.
Would seem the same logic that applies in the moving case would apply in the dead case. Therefore, the deadbot did not cause his situation, therefore by implication would not be penalized.
Why would they penalize a dead robot who was perfectly fine as a dead backbot minding his own business when they don't penalize a robot that is actually moving to become a backbot but is prevented by the opponent? This logic implies that it does not good for the opponent to try and screw up your ability to get in backbot position.
I will ask Q/A and get it answered. Good debate though.