[Tristan Lall]

The sad part is, 30 points wins most matches. (Consider the Great Lakes Regional: the mean losers' score was 11.3, and the median was 5.) And the incentive created by this fact could prompt teams to stack their robots; teams would be weighing the obvious advantages of sitting around and doing nothing, versus being the cause of the obviously boring match that would result. Strangely enough, if teams had consistently good ramps, and drivetrains consistently capable of climbing these ramps, everybody would be getting these points, and still keeping the other 2:00 of the match relatively interesting.

If I were to guess, that's the problem that the GDC has with it. He who perches his robot precariously upon something ought to be well aware of the risks of that strategy (note that there was previously no rule against interlocking robots—big zip ties might have been a very useful thing, were it not for the update). But autonomous mode is generally tragic to watch; if something moves, the crowd cheers. The prospect of whole matches like that probably isn't quite what FIRST bargained for, when they pitched the competition to their sponsors. It sounds to me like FIRST wanted to guarantee that there would be substantial robot activity during every match, rather than making a substantial number of matches into 1 vs. 1 competition, with a stationary tower at either end.

I have to say, though; it's better than the tape measure rule. At least they issued an update this time. (I am aware that that was five years ago, and I am mostly over it.)