Quote:
Originally Posted by
burkechrs1 
He said that as long as we have a keeper in our possession the other alliance could pin us against the rack as long as they wanted. I thought it was a wrong call but I didnt argue and ended up having to drop many ringers in the match to follow im order to get 190 to stop pinning us...
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Krass
This is correct, as per <G39>. Our alliance received a pinning penalty during the elimination rounds that was announced in such a way as to make it seem like it was illegal to pin a robot that was not carrying a game piece against the rack. I had a long conversation with the head ref. to ensure that both he and I were understanding the rule correctly and, after that, was satisfied that he was calling <G39> correctly.
|
I'm not quite sure I understand everyone's position as stated above. Madison, could you please clarify what part of burkechrs1's statement you believe is "correct"? As much as I'd love for the defense to be able to pin ringer-possessing offensive bots to the rack all day without penalty, I believe the opposite is actually the rule:
Code:
From G39:
Note that a ROBOT attempting to HANG a GAME PIECE
on the RACK will be immune from a "pinning" violation as long as it is clear that the ROBOT is continuing to attempt to HANG the GAME PIECE.
To be immune is to be incapable of receiving something "bad". I believe the OFFENSIVE robot will be "immune" from receiving a penalty if it pins the defensive bot to the rack while attempting to score. I do not believe the converse is true. People think the rule is ambiguous, but I think it is clear. This is one area where the GDC is helpin' out the offensive guys, and the rule makes very good sense.
Yes, I do stick up for Dave and the GDC when it is warranted, which is most of the time.
I just want to make sure everyone is clear on this, so........
(Sorry for the big type but it's necessary - there's only one place to turn to for the true interpretation. I PM'd him requesting a reply, but I wanted all thread readers to notice this particular post.)
DAVE COULD YOU PLEASE CLEAR THE INTENT OF <G39> UP FOR EVERYONE?