[jtechau]

I don't see any need to change the rules. Notice that these rules specify that they're "Protection" rules. That strongly implies that the intent of the rule is to protect robots attempting to elevate or suspend. While <G35> doesn't specify an exception for an unattended opponent's tower, a reasonable referee should not red-card a robot for such an infraction.

Further, referees can make reasonable judgements as to what's considered "obviously intentional" contact. The rules in FLL clearly state (or used to) that robots will be given the benefit of the doubt. To me, that's well with the FIRST spirit. (For what it's worth, for example, I saw many cases which could be interpreted (at least loosely) to violate <G36> - especially tipping over other robots - and yet I'm not aware of any penalties being handed out for that rule, at our regional.)

Of course, it's well within referees' rights to call the rules by the book. (And it's NOT within teams' rights to question those calls.) But the intent of the rules also needs to be considered. Any referee who red-cards a robot for something minor will have some 'splainin' to do. Referees don't live in a vacuum. They spend a lot of time interacting and discussing such situations, in an attempt to present a less subjective refereeing experience. But they're still human.

Finally, whatever the rules are, goes. Nobody said life is fair. FRC is about giving kids a taste of what the "real world" is like. Sometimes it seems harsh - depending on your perspective.