Quote:
Originally Posted by T3_1565
I understand the problem and why it is not legal yet this question clearly lays out EXACTLY what 190 does. And even though rule G22 was not mentioned, the question only asks if the move is legal, it does not ask if it breaks such-and-such a rule. Therefore, GDC should of mentioned G22 in there response and said it was not legal, yet they didn't. |
The GDC messed up by not citing <G22> in their response, in addition to <R16>, etc., and consequently said it was "legal". I would speculate that 190 assumed that because the Q&A declared it to be legal, that it would be a valid strategy irrespective of <G22>; that's been proven wrong now, obviously.
If it was stated plainly in the rules that the Q&A exists to give guidance for situations that aren't clear in the rules, but can't change or override a rule already in force, maybe 190 would have thought better of the strategy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli
1. 1114 and 190 asked a question about holding onto the ball as you go over the overpass and how far off the ground you should be when you let go. It was crystal clear (based on the Q & A) that intent of the rule was that the ball was approximately at the height of the overpass. 1114 decided against this strategy because of the GDC response here: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8151. Apparently, 190 ignored this response.
...
Stop it. The answer from the GDC on releasing the ball was clear. They said, "at least the height of the overpass." 190 simply ignored the answer. Why? Because it wasn't specifically in the rules, but the answer clearly stated the intent. I just don't get it. Maybe I just don't have a good enough imagination. |
The linked response basically says, 'don't make us change the rules to your detriment'. If the intent of this rule was so important to the GDC, they should have either changed the rule to conform with their intent by issuing an update, or acknowledged that they hadn't considered that situation, and would allow anything. There's no need for confusing teams with the statement that they
might issue a rule change.
Of course, given that uncertainty, 190 took a significant risk, exploiting something that the GDC had expressed displeasure about. But again, the GDC should have been clearer about what is required, and what would be grudgingly permitted.