|
Re: Did anyone else see it this way?
Many robots operate much of the time with their extensions outside of their starting zone, and when in close quaters, frequently make contact with other robots' 38x28 ‘protected’ space. Rule <G35>, if strictly enforced would result in a sizable number of robots receiving penalties. I believe that the enforcement (and thusly the interpretation) of this rule had to be relaxed to avoid a rash of penalties, and the ‘incidental’ clause gives leeway. Because ‘incidental’ is never defined, and a visible line never drawn, interpretation is bound to be arbitrary. To further weaken the rule, note that it is sprinkled with softeners such as "generally" and "guidelines". Perpetrator intent may be a factor too, as the rule is titled "Intentional ROBOT- ROBOT Interaction"
A great deal of leeway has been incorporated into this rule - So much that the rule is no longer a rule but a guiding principle. This one is totally up to the referees.
__________________
"A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving..."
--Albert Einstein
2001: FLL852 |2002: FLL20/FLL21 |2003: FLL23/FLL25 |2004: FLL14/FLL16 |2005: FVC22/FLL124 |2006: FLL3/FLL2986/FVC22/FRC1732 |2007:FLL3/FLL34/FLL56/FRC1732
2008: FLL3/FLL18/FRC1732 |2009: FLL101/FLL8963/FRC1732 ...(etc.!)
|