Quote:
Originally Posted by JVN
Intentional vs. Accidental.
Does anyone believe 1114 meant to shoot outside the field?
|
I added <S01> consideration in my previous post, because <G19> is one of those watered-down rules a ref will probably never call and teams would incessantly argue in the question box if it were (even if they were guilty of intent). This is an instance of safety enforcement over strategic intent.
In some cases, such as the ball incursion update, giving referees more discretion can be beneficial. In others, such as this instance, the "intentional" label waters down the rule to the point that they shouldn't even bother putting it in the rule book, because it'll never be called.
If by everyone's defenses, there is no enforceable action in the rulebook for reinforcing the fact that a robot is not to fire a ball in a careless, unsafe manner that results in the ball flying in a *very bad* direction almost perpendicular to the length of the field, then what's the point of having the rules in the first place?
Maybe if a ball takes out one of FIRST's scoring table gizmos instead of merely hitting the gut of a spectator or targeting the Pittsburgh referees numerous times throughout the competition, as many shots from Pittsburgh robots did, it would become more of a matter of concern?