G28 + G11 seems broken

[Kevin Sevcik]

The argument that G11 doesn't apply because "We're not trying to draw a foul, we're trying to achieve [some other game objective]" is certainly persuasive, but it's just not as solid as I'd like something to be in this case. It's a defense that could be used for hitting an opposing robot almost anywhere in the courtyard. "We were trying for the drawbridge to finish off the breach and they were in our way, but then we realized we couldn't and went back for the challenge instead." That's probably a little too Machiavellian to actually turn up in a match if it's not true, but still.

Anyways, I feel like it leaves too much guess work for the referees, when you could cover it by adding a line to the match flow rule about impeding access to the tower in the last 20. But the GDC has been opposed to overly specific wordings recently, so they may in fact leave it as is and go with the intent-heavy ruling of G11.