Thread: FAQ for Q&A
View Single Post
  #28   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-01-2011, 18:13
GaryVoshol's Avatar
GaryVoshol GaryVoshol is offline
Cogito ergo arbitro
no team
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 5,764
GaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond repute
Re: FAQ for Q&A

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirteenOfTwo View Post
<G32>Neither ROBOTS, HOSTBOTS, nor MINIBOTS may break the planes of the vertically projected borders of the opponent’s ZONES. Violation: PENALTY

<G61> The actions of an ALLIANCE shall not cause an opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule and thus incur PENALTIES. Any rule violations committed by the affected ALLIANCE shall be excused, and no PENALTIES will be assigned.
Unless otherwise noted, all PENALTIES assigned by referees are applied to the entire ALLIANCE.

Given hypothetical scenario: Team A is an offensive robot with a powerful drive train that is carrying a tube back to its zone to be scored. Team B is a defensive robot who is waiting at the entrance to Team A's zone to stop them from entering. Team B deliberately moves directly in front of Team A in order to body block them. However, the power of Team A's drive train overcomes that of Team B's, and Team B is pushed into Team A's zone in front of team B.

Which of the following rulings is correct?

1) Team B incurs a penalty per <G32>.
2) Team B does not incur a penalty because they were forced into Team A's zone per rule <G61>.
3) Team A's violation of <G61> is waived due to Team B's violation of <G61>, i.e. moving directly in front of Team A in order to force team A to violate <G61>.
2 is correct.

I don't understand 3. There is no "violation" of <G61> - that rule only says that sometimes violations of other rules are excused.
__________________
(since 2004)
Reply With Quote