[jamie_1930]

Originally Posted by Lostmage333

I actually see this as necessary in cases.

At Cass Tech District, I dare say that 30/40 teams would have been called for G46s under the old G46. However, the rule change made it so that many of these teams, some of which were repeat offenders (2-3 times in a "good" match), had no incentive to actually fix the problem.

I will say that the referees were good at calling the penalty often times when a team played defense with a trapped ball. However, in my opinion, a robot that drives over a ball 95% of the time when driving forwards with a ball in front of it needs to be fixed, but the rules permit teams to play otherwise.

Just my $.02.

There is no time in which this is necessary or acceptable. A referee must know, thoroughly, all of the rules and any updates or changes that have been made to them, and make their calls according to these rules. In the case in which you have presented the situation is different though, according to update 16

<G46> BALL Penetration Restriction – The BALL must not extend more than 3 inches inside the FRAME PERIMETER as defined in Rule <R19>. Incidental protrusions of the BALL within this boundary will not be penalized if the TEAM corrects the condition before resuming game play. Violation: PENALTY for a basic infraction, plus a YELLOW CARD if no immediate attempt to remedy and/or the action is deemed intentional.

meaning that if as you say a robot is continuing to play defense once a ball has entered it's frame perimeter more than 3 inches then it constitutes a penalty, the incentive comes from the fact that by not correcting the problem before you continue to play the game still calls for a penalty. The problem is uninformed officials making decisions based on an outdated set of rules, unrelated to the case you have shown.