View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-15-2010, 11:25 PM
Nuttle89 Nuttle89 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Ben Nuttle
FRC #5332
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 9
Nuttle89 has a spectacular aura aboutNuttle89 has a spectacular aura about
Re: Rules that I think should be changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2641Captain View Post
I want everyone's opinion on two rules that I think are too harsh. The two rules I am referring to are:

<G34> FINALE PERIOD ROBOT Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in contact with their TOWER or in contact with an ELEVATED ALLIANCE partner may not be contacted by an opponent. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

<G35> FINALE PERIOD TOWER Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in may not contact the OPPONENT’S TOWER. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

There are two real problems with these rules that I can think of. First, as a part of playing good defense it is a good idea to block the tower without touching it, but it is very hard from my experience to see when you are close to the tower and if you are actually touching it. Second, the second half of the rules talks about obvious intentional contact. This is up to interpretation and I believe that it is a lot of pressure to put on an official, and it is difficult to really tell what someone's intentions are.

I would like to recommend that the rule is kept, but changed slightly with a less severe penalty such as a loss of points or a yellow card. I think a RED CARD should only be used for something that really has changed the game in a way that mischievous.

Let me know what you think.
I think what is in greatest need of clarification here is "obviously intentional contact." Based on the redcard offense, one would think "malicious" would be a better suited term. I can easily see a justifyable redcard for teams who intentionally try to ram hanging robots off the tower.

I suppose what really is at stake here: Is the rule a measure of safety or strategical limitation? That is, is the rule in place solely to discourage hanging defence, or is it more the issue of robot + gravity = bad? Perhaps Q&A will have an answer...
Reply With Quote