Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth Sweet
You know, when I was on HOT, we did a very similar maneuver (put the giant ball in the robot of the Canadian team with the blue shirts and orange hats)...
|
That was the aforementioned team 1241; they have orange toques and blue jerseys.
Back on topic, the consternation regarding this being against the spirit of FIRST is a little ridiculous. You can't expect to participate in a competition (or even a competitive environment, like business) where no party seeks to choose the most beneficial strategy for them, within the rules and ethics that govern their enterprise. Where's the ethical fault in causing an opponent to incur this penalty (in the FRC)? They know the rules, and should have studied them well, and as a result, if they didn't anticipate the possibility of this manoeuvre (and protect against it, if desired), they should expect to reap the consequences.
Simply put, there's no harm done, and no violation of the rules; what's the problem? If every strategy that helped your opponents to lose a match were considered so egregious, what sort of competition would we have?*
If the rule is amended, then you have a tacit statement from FIRST that this was not what they intended. If not, exploit the rule to its reasonable limits, and conversely, don't complain to the referees when someone does it to you. It's just part of the game.
I fully support asking the Q&A about it, though. But let's first seek to understand what the status of the Q&A is this year—are responses equivalent to official rules and updates, or are they guidelines for the interpretation of rules? Basically, if the Q&A contradicts a stated rule, which takes precedence this year (it's gone various ways in the past)?
*Don't speak of 2001....