Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by jblay

With blockading I interpreted the rules and I think the refs did as well, the way that blockading has been called in the past specifically in 2011. Two robots teaming up on one robot to stop them from crossing the field. In my mind this refers to only one lane or in front of the pyramid. 1 robot cannot stop a gap from existing in either of these 3 zones, 2 robots can, that is why the rule exists. 2 robots on opposite ends of the field cannot be evaluated as a blockade especially because that would mean that if one robot is on one side playing defense that means there is no way for their partner to enter the other side of the field because there is now no area they can cross without creating this interpretation of a blockade. Also the idea that if the robot can go under the pyramid or not has an effect on the call is pretty crazy. What if I have a robot that can go under but the bot breaks and is stuck in the above position? This is not only unfair because you have made a design choice around not being able to use this part of the field but is also up to the referee to evaluate if you can under the pyramid or not to see if you are being blockaded. To me the rule is pretty black and white. Two robots sitting in front of their opponent trying to stop them from getting somewhere is a blockade, everything else is just defense.

I'm sorry, I think it's a pretty ridiculous stretch for you, a ref, or anyone else to say that essentially any 2v1 defense on a robot constitutes blockad[ing] the FIELD in an attempt to stop the flow of the MATCH. You can't just pull the word "blockading" out of that and treat that as the rule, and "stop[ping] one robot from crossing the field" does not, in my opinion, come close to meeting the actual definition of the rule, nor does anything that happened in that match. Would you honestly look at the rule the same way if it hadn't been your team that had benefited from that call?