Did You See this Ruling?

[Paul Copioli]

Here is a question and answer from the tech digest I received last night/this morning. I apologize for not having the number, but I just read the digest when it is sent to me:


Q: The analogy with football is good, but still worrisome. If our
robot's intent is to change the direction of another
robot (not to
damage it), by ramming it at high speed, would this be judged "malicious" and disqualify our robot?
Similarly, if our intent is to make the other robot
"fumble" by
dislodging the goal from its grasp, would the
high-speed collision be
judged malicious and disqualify our robot?
Would the design of the other robot influence the judges' decision?
That is, if the opposing robot looks rugged, then the
judges might rule in our favor, but if the opposing robot is
flimsy, they may rule against us.


A: Worrisome? Hmm. What you're asking us to do is allow you to blitz the quarterback with no possibility of penalty, no matter what you do.
If you've ever been a football fan, think about it. Your actions would probably be taken as malicious. There's rules in football about people hitting the quarterback in the head (at all) and about unnecessary roughness. This is probably because in the early days of football, the referees' union got tired of hearing, "Hey ref I wasn't trying to hurt him, I was just trying to make him fumble!". Or, "Hey, he's a wimpy quarterback! A tough one would have taken that hit!". In the NFL, they don't judge whether the linebacker is roughing the passer by whether the QB is Dante Culpepper or Doug Flutie.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems to me that FIRST has made it clear that high speed ramming will be considered malicious no matter what. Any other thoughts?


-Paul