G43 loophole

[cmwilson13]

Originally Posted by Monochron

How you define "attempting" could be very different than he does though. Does the lead up to a traverse fall under "attempting"? What about when you fail a traverse? When does the "attempt" end?

They define traversing in the rule and according to that definition contact alone is not traversing. Only breaking the plane of the outer works is defined as traversing. Here is the pertinent line

A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS.

If you backup to pull down the bridge you are no longer breaking the plane of the outer works

[AndyBare]

Originally Posted by cmwilson13

They define traversing in the rule and according to that definition contact alone is not traversing. Only breaking the plane of the outer works is defined as traversing. Here is the pertinent line

A ROBOT is considered traversing the opponent’s OUTER WORKS if any part of its BUMPERS are within the opponent’s OUTER WORKS.

If you backup to pull down the bridge you are no longer breaking the plane of the outer works

But would you agree that pulling a gate down in an attempt to traverse the outer works is "attempting to traverse"? That's the key.

[cmwilson13]

No. They defined traversing and contact is not listed anywhere

[martin417]

Since there is no definition in the rules for "attempting to traverse", then "attempting" has no meaning withing the rules.

So, how does a ref decide if a robot is "attempting"? Is moving towards the defense attempting? It could be, because The robot is attempting to get to the outer works. There is no way the GDC will allow such an ambiguous definition to stand. Expect a team update where they include "contacting any part of the defense" to the definition of "traversing".

[AndyBare]

Originally Posted by martin417

Expect a team update where they include "contacting any part of the defense" to the definition of "traversing".

Bingo

[cmwilson13]

I very much hope so.