Defense in the 1 point goal

[samfruth]

Feel free to schoot me down, in no way am I considering actually doing this, just a question.

Is/are there rule(s) againt defending the 1 point goal by means of sticking something inside of it from the side and just flat out not letting a ball go in?

The only problem I can think of is getting pentalized for having a part of the robot out of the playing field. So I guess the real question is; does the inside of the 1 point goal count as "out of bounds"?

[Isaac501]

You should probably read the rules.

This is specifically illegal.

[Steven Smith]

To be fair, this wasn't in the original rules but in in an update 3 days ago. OP, remember to check at http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/ and click "Team Updates" regularly, or watch for the posts here on CD.

Team Update 1-7-2014
G26-1
ROBOTS may not break the planes of the openings of the opponent’s LOW GOALS.

Violation: FOUL. If extended, strategic, or repeated, TECHNICAL FOUL.

[ErvinI]

Originally Posted by Isaac501

You should probably read the rules.

This is specifically illegal.

ROBOT Actions


G26-1


ROBOTS may not break the planes of the openings of the opponent’s LOW GOALS.

Violation: FOUL. If extended, strategic, or repeated, TECHNICAL FOUL.

Rectified on Jan 7th. Originally, this was legal.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by ErvinI

Rectified on Jan 7th. Originally, this was legal.

I don't think it was the intention of the GDC to allow this strategy, even if there wasn't a specific rule against it in the original manual.

[samfruth]

Thanks fellas. My bad for not checking the updates.

[ErvinI]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

I don't think it was the intention of the GDC to allow this strategy, even if there wasn't a specific rule against it in the original manual.

The mention on the strategy being legal was a response to Isaac501, who specified that it was explicitly stated in the manual, which it was originally not.

[TheMadCADer]

Keep in mind that putting something just in front of the goal openings is still legal and should be equally effective.

[Animal Control]

if you do that you will be disqualified.

[Animal Control]

If you do that you will be disqualified.

[TheMadCADer]

Originally Posted by Animal Control

If you do that you will be disqualified.

First of all, heads up on the double post.

Next, please quote a rule that disallows blocking the goals with your robot.

Also, have a look at the different types of penalties that can happen and how. "Disqualified" isn't one of them. There are FOULS, TECHNICAL FOULS, as well as YELLOW and RED CARDS. Please read the manual.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by TheMadCADer

Also, have a look at the different types of penalties that can happen and how. "Disqualified" isn't one of them. There are FOULS, TECHNICAL FOULS, as well as YELLOW and RED CARDS. Please read the manual.

Just a minor nitpick on this...

"A RED CARD results in DISQUALIFICATION." (This is from 5.5.4, 1st paragraph.)

And "Disqualified" is defined in the Manual as: "DISQUALIFIED: the status of a TEAM, as determined by the Head Referee, in which they receive zero (0)
Qualification Points in a Qualification MATCH or causes their ALLIANCE to automatically lose an Elimination MATCH." (Section 6, Glossary)

Yep, that's a penalty, all right. But to get a red card, you're doing something REALLY--how to say this--NOT smart.

And blocking the goal (the action in question) is only a Technical Foul, or 50 points, assuming that you actually enter the goal to do it, nowhere near a card of any sort. Blocking the goal without entering it, on the other hand, is quite legal, and I expect to see several teams doing it.