Quote:
Originally Posted by gblake
When I am ref'ing I definitely tell teams not to repeatedly back up and hit an opponent; and not to take aim from far away, and then charge into an opponent at high speed. . . .
Some other games that involve physical contact (human-human) make pretty good analogies. . .
Learning to advance persuasive arguments that correctly link facts to defend an assertion, can (should?) be one of the benefits of participating in STEM robotics competitions.
Blake
|
The distinction between fouling and tough defense in basketball is notoriously subjective, but it might also be a very good analogy.
Repeatedly backing up and pushing (or "hitting") was the only effective defense played against the team I mentored last year. That was how the defending teams avoided being called for pinning--push (or "ram" if you want to call it that), back up a little then push (or "ram") again, as many as 6 or 7 times in 15-20 seconds, for example.
Unfortunately, our team also learned (from three seasons' experience) to do the same thing, did it twice in one match (with two pushes or "rams" in one set and three in another), and damaged another robot doing it. Result: the team was DQ'd for "excessive force", one hour after the match in question was over. There were no warnings or calls made during the match, nor immediately after when the damaged team complained.
I asked the head of all officials and judges, who gave us the DQ news, why the call was "excessive force" and not "intentional damage", since the second term was in the game manual, the first one not. (Presumably the "intent" of "intentional damage" must be judged by the referees on the field at the time, and not by a committee of all refs reviewing damage in the pits, as happened here.) At first he stood by his position that it was in the game manual, then shifted to say "excessive force" was in the referee manual. When I said "I don't think I've seen the referee manual" he said "you're not supposed to."
From a lowly team's point of view, the game is exactly what the head officials or the FTC affiliate partner of the competition say it is.