|
Re: Rules Questions
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Regardless, it seems as long as your component does not "impede access to the RACK or an ALLIANCE ROBOT," the 10-point penalty may be worth the risk. Then again, is it truly in the spirit of FIRST to intentionally earn a penalty to win the game
|
It is NOT in the spirit of FIRST but to some people, even in FIRST, winning is everything and to win is to prove something to others. But this is very true in the world we live in. Numbers speak for themselves, but how you got those numbers does not matter as much.
|
Quote:
9.3.8 Ranking Score
The total number of ranking points earned by a team throughout their qualification matches, divided by the number of matches played (excluding any SURROGATE matches), then truncated to two decimal places, will be their ranking score. Note: because your ranking score is derived directly from the match scores of the losing ALLIANCES in the matches you play, it is in your best interest to support your opponents and win by helping each ALLIANCE score as many points as possible.
|
|
I am curious if there is a quick pointer to some FORMAL statement that suffering a penalty (even one that results in your robot being disabled), in order to keep from losing a match, is "against" the spirit of FIRST.
With the exception of actions that cause one's team to be disqualified, I tend to think of penalties as just "points". Some points are added to your score. Some points are subtracted from your score.
With the exception of actions that are cause for a DQ, I am unaware of anything immoral, malicious or ungracious about reducing your own alliance's score somewhat, in order to avoid seeing the opposing alliance's score grow enough defeat your alliance.
If the actions that generate negative points were against the spirit of FIRST, then I would presume that FIRST would simply DQ you for doing them. Instead most penalties seem to be designed to emphasize having teams accumulate postive points, but not exclude occasionally making the wise choice of picking up a few negative points in order to avoid completely losing a match.
After all, match points are used before ranking points are used.
Is there a pointer to a RULE?
Thanks
Blake
__________________
Blake Ross, For emailing me, in the verizon.net domain, I am blake
VRC Team Mentor, FTC volunteer, 5th Gear Developer, Husband, Father, Triangle Fraternity Alumnus (ky 76), U Ky BSEE, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, Kentucky Colonel
Words/phrases  I avoid: basis, mitigate, leveraging, transitioning, impact (instead of affect/effect), facilitate, programmatic, problematic, issue (instead of problem), latency (instead of delay), dependency (instead of prerequisite), connectivity, usage & utilize (instead of use), downed, functionality, functional, power on, descore, alumni (instead of alumnus/alumna), the enterprise, methodology, nomenclature, form factor (instead of size or shape), competency, modality, provided(with), provision(ing), irregardless/irrespective, signage, colorized, pulsating, ideate
|