Quote:
Originally Posted by dtengineering
Without having read the FTC rules in detail, and just basing my comments on the GDC reply, I can conceive that the laundry basket is meant to be part of the "scoring area"... perhaps a physical manifestation of the scoring area boundary... and that by moving the laundry basket the scoring area has been changed... and since the "scoring area" was no longer as specified in the rules that the scoring area was therefore damaged. . . . Damage, after all, does not always require destruction!
|
True, damage does not necessarily require destruction, and strategies aimed solely at "damage" or "destruction" of Scoring Areas are prohibited as follows:
<G8> Strategies and mechanisms aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of Robots or Scoring Areas are not in the spirit of the FIRST Tech Challenge and are not allowed.
But here is the definition of Scoring Areas:
2.3 Game Definitions
Scoring Areas – There are three (3) Scoring Areas where balls may be Scored – two within the 12’x12’ Playing Field and one outside the Playing Field. Balls will be counted for the corresponding alliance color based on where they are Scored.
Off-field Goal – Two baskets that measure 15”w x 23”d x 15”h and are placed 4 feet away from the front side of the Playing Field. Balls can be shot into these goals only during the last 30 seconds of the Match. Behind the Off-field Goal will be a netted Backstop that will be used to contain balls in the Competition Area. The netting is not intended to be a reliable Backstop to bounce balls off to score in the Off-field Goal. Teams should expect a large variability in the tautness of the netting.
I guess the "damage" is because if you move a basket, it is no longer "placed 4 feet away" as in the definition, and is therefore no longer within the definition, and is therefore no longer a "goal", and has therefore been "destroyed" as a goal. But the baskets are obviously "placed" sometime before the match, and it is a strained interpretation of the word "placed" to say that anything "placed" cannot be moved without damaging or destroying it. (Maybe if the word "located" had been used in the definition instead of "placed" for example, the question about moving the baskets might not even have needed asking.)
A negative ruling is fine. (If a team sees a strategy that the rules seem to allow but that the the GDC probably did not intend, and if the strategy is one the team would prefer not to have to face, the team should at least ask a question.) Some ruling needs to be made, and as you point out, we can hardly expect the developers to see all of the potential loopholes or creative possibilities that the many thousands of individuals on teams might see. I would even expect a negative ruling on this point, based on the apparent intent of the rules, as shown by statements like "balls can be shot into these goals."
What I am suggesting is that where the rules need either (1) a strained interpretation or (2) a small change or addition--in order to close a loophole or gap of some kind--ideally they should be changed.