Quote:
Originally Posted by StephLee
I am hesitant to agree that an intentional tie would be likely to entertain the audience either, especially if the audience is expecting competition and realizes halfway through a match that the teams are simply scoring in their own goals with no real intention to actually compete against one another.
|
Note that I said more entertaining
than a colluded shutout, which is a valid point. The reason for this is because you still don't know if one team will cheat at the end or of somebody will make a mistake or get a penalty be accident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveGPage
The big risk however to an "intentional" tie agreement (and I still see that there is a lot of risk that someone would also cheat) is that due to the shear magnitude of penalties that are possible, you would have to have an intentional tie, with absolutely no penalties. How many times have we seen matches that appeared to go one way, to only after the penalties were assessed, the match went to the other alliance. Many of the penalties - case in point "Overdrive" - were not obvious to the team/alliance at the time because they couldn't tell that had even violated a rule due to limited vision what the robot was doing on the far side of the track.
|
I'm well aware of this. However, I don't see many of the penalties this year being like <G22> and maybe <G35> from 2008. I'm fairly certain that the only one that might be like this not crossing the center line in autonomous.