[JesseK]

Hmm.

FIRST even stated the intent of rule R4 ... no extension outside of the field so as to prevent the crew from being hurt. Yet R4 can't be further amended without constraining other possible designs that go with the intent of the rule. Also, the poster goes against the intent of the program -- moving the outside goal removes all possibility of scoring in it since there's no targetting system involved with it ... just dead reckoning from the perspective of the field and an assumed shared agreement of where the outer goal should be.. So moving the goal is in itself unsportsmanlike, therefore isn't GP.

Ask yourself what you'd do in that situation -- would you constantly ammend rules and break even one of the 1000 teams' designs that do go with your intent only to have an upset, frustrated team ... or would you cover your bases with the one team who's blatently going against your stated intent of the rule?

The answer to the poster's question is clear to me, as is the "why" for it, yet in this country we have this culture that "intent is just a suggestion". Hence the response seems logical to me. The damage to the field isn't the physical damage to the bucket, but rather the damage is to the assumption of where the goal is. If no one ever went against the intent, the question wouldn't have even come up.