|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: A "Dangerous Situation"
Quote:
I think that Rule 18-1 has been (in Michigan) considered violated only in such glaringly obvious cases such as this - I don't believe I've ever seen it called at either of the events I volunteered at (one of which where I was a referee) or at the third and fourth where I was merely a spectator. It seems to me to be a more "Spirit of the Game" rule rather than a rule prohibiting incidental/unintentional contact that might occur during the fast, brief collisions incurred during an intense FRC match. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A "Dangerous Situation"
Quote:
There is no rule stating that you must avoid another robot to get to your desired location on the field. As soon as they get between you and your alliance partner your strategy changes because you can no longer push them away. It's that "aimed solely" wording along with a harsh penalty that seems to make the difference here. As long as you are attempting to play some other aspect of the game, your strategy is no longer aimed solely at forcing penalties. |
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A "Dangerous Situation"
This is one of the problems of having to rewrite the rules every season. The law of untended consequences come up. Everybody, referees included, has a slightly different interpretation of the rules. The best you can hope for is at any given event, the referees are consistent.
Just reading G18-1, I would think that it would only be called when intent to cause a foul is the only reasonable interpretation of the action. So pushing a robot into a protected member while trying to get them out of the way of another robot shooting should not be a foul under this rule. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A "Dangerous Situation"
Quote:
Personally, my feeling is that 18-1 is too severe and narrow to accomplish its goal (as I interpret it). Attempting to assign a technical foul based on intent of an action is far too difficult to judge accurately enough to enforce the rule by assigning technical fouls. As written, a forced rule violation that would receive a technical foul creates a 40pt swing in the match based on the referee's ruling. There is no middle ground where Red forced Blue to violate a rule with motives beyond generating foul points; in this case, even though the penalty was forced upon blue, they are still penalized despite their inability to avoid it (by the letter of the rules). I feel like the intent of G18-1 would be better stated as follows: "Strategies that result in forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of the game, rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE. Violation: Technical Foul if the sole intent of the strategy was to force a rules violation" Add a blue box on G30 stating "With respect to G18-1, G30 will supersede, except in cases where the violating ROBOT is prevented from escaping contact (for example, a second opposing robot holding them in place or pushing them into contact)." Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but the intent of the rules seems to be to prevent people from being penalized unavoidably, but not to give them a protective bubble. |
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A "Dangerous Situation"
So would a strategy to force the other alliance into a G18-1 would be in fact a violation of G18-1 in itself?
How deep into this rabbit hole do we want to go? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|