Can teams damage their own defenses?

[Chase Haddleton]

Originally Posted by davidstorer14

Really there wouldn't be a reason to cross your own defenses since you can go through your own secret passage to get past your outer wall.

Might be faster if you're on the other side of the field and you want to go over the "ground level defences" (moat etc)

[rich2202]

The "crossings" have to be entered by a Ref.

A "Ref" is NOT going to remember that (let alone look for) you crossing your own defense for possibly entering as a score way later in the game.

The Ref will be looking for a robot currently crossing, and once the crossing is complete, enter the score.

[JesseK]

and then later on enters the red courtyard

More specifically, 3.1.3. outlines the definition of CROSS as 3 individual requirements (bullet points) rather than a sentence. Since all of the wording in the three bullet points is singular, only one CROSSING is awarded per meeting of the bullet points.

For example, if blue cross its own defenses 8 times it has met the requirements of the first two bullets 8 times and the third bullet point is never met (it's not the opponent's courtyard). If it then crossed a red defense once it has met the requirements for the first two bullets 9 times, but the third bullet point has only been met one time, thus is only awarded for one CROSSING.

It's an interesting edge case to think about, for sure.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by JesseK

More specifically, 3.1.3. outlines the definition of CROSS as 3 individual requirements (bullet points) rather than a sentence. Since all of the wording in the three bullet points is singular, only one CROSSING is awarded per meeting of the bullet points.

For example, if blue cross its own defenses 8 times it has met the requirements of the first two bullets 8 times and the third bullet point is never met (it's not the opponent's courtyard). If it then crossed a red defense once it has met the requirements for the first two bullets 9 times, but the third bullet point has only been met one time, thus is only awarded for one CROSSING.

It's an interesting edge case to think about, for sure.

Hopefully it's an edge case they'll clarify, since I could definitely see there being a reason to cut across your own defense if it's faster (say to pick up a loose boulder or go on defense). As others have said in this thread it puts an undue burden on the refs, but the rules also emphasize that it falls on the team to inform the refs when conditions are met.

I'll try to submit a Q&A once I get the team password. I suspect this is a simple oversight and teams will be allowed to cross their own defenses with impunity, although it would be interesting if they decide not to permit it.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by KGenson

Hopefully it's an edge case they'll clarify, since I could definitely see there being a reason to cut across your own defense if it's faster (say to pick up a loose boulder or go on defense). As others have said in this thread it puts an undue burden on the refs, but the rules also emphasize that it falls on the team to inform the refs when conditions are met.

I'll try to submit a Q&A once I get the team password. I suspect this is a simple oversight and teams will be allowed to cross their own defenses with impunity, although it would be interesting if they decide not to permit it.

To me, as a planned ref at a district event, it's pretty clear cut that the robot only met the requirements of CROSSING one time.

[Doug Frisk]

While you cannot damage your own defenses, I would suggest that if your strategy involves traversing your own defenses you keep an eye on what the refs are doing the first week or two.

It's quite possible that in the heat of the moment a ref may not notice the bumper color and mistakenly award the opposing team credit for crossing the defense.

If that's the difference between fully breaching the outer defenses or not, it could affect seeding. But at least you'll get to hang out in the question box for a bit.

Or you could use the secret passage to avoid the potential issue.