Team UPDATE - 2014-03-25

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

How can anyone say 1114's tech foul is "no more or less egregious" than the regular foul?

1114 contacted 1241's extended element--which was in the process of going for the ball--while trying to play defense. So while it was indeed 1241's extended element that caused the damage, it was 1114's action that caused the contact.

You can make an argument that neither penalty was intentional and therefore shouldn't be assessed; though I'm sure I know how that kind of argument would fly in, say, football.

The GDC can't win here; if they loosen the penalties the way many are clamoring for, then they get complaints. If they keep them and enforce them the way many are clamoring for, then they get complaints.

The situation as it happened is unfortunate, but it's no more unfortunate than if 1241 had, say, knocked off a chunk of 1114's bumper and 1114 had been disabled for the rest of the match. You can argue that of course 1114's bumpers are sufficiently robust to prevent that from happening--but were their upper mechanical systems sufficiently robust, that wouldn't have happened either.

My preference on this whole thing would be that all contact inside the frame perimeter is a foul, regardless of who initiates that contact, and to let the penalties fall where they may. If we're absolutely clear on this at the beginning of the season, everyone will design accordingly, or suffer the consequences. (In 2008 we had a rule much like that. We built our robot such that it barely extended outside the frame perimeter because of that foul potential. It was irksome at the time to see the penalty never called.)