[Meredith Rice]

I see no ambiguity in this issue at all. My interpretation is that it is very clear through everything we do in FIRST that an agreement to fix the outcome of the match is not honorable at all. Collusion is not just sketchy, it is wrong. Think of the consequences for your fellow FIRSTers at the competition if just one match is fixed such that both teams can each claim a row without any interference. All of their hard work and honorable competition strategies would be demeaned since two teams decided to cheat in their match (yes, it is cheating because it alters the goal of the challenge).

The idea of "supporting your opponents" and helping them to earn as many points as possible as stated in our rules is designed to discourage competition strategies with the main focus of preventing your opponents from scoring anything so that you can win by a small margin. With this strategy, elegant design and creative engineering are not really praised, but at least this type of play is not dishonorable. It still presents a challenge for both teams, and the win is fair and square.

I really hope that no FIRST teams would agree to fix a match with their opponents. While it is probably impossible for referees to penalize this type of strategy, I would hope that such behavior would not go unnoticed by the other teams and judges and that the match is made an example of what NOT to do in FIRST.