YMTC: Is it goaltending?

[Kris Verdeyen]

The issue here is, I believe, intent. The intent of the rule is to prevent teams from building a device that prevents shots from being scored, or using a ball as such a device. The blue team's behavior breaks neither of these rules. Redabot is trying to play the game correctly, by getting the ball to cap a goal, and the blue team is cheaply trying to use a loophole to score some quick points. If I was a ref, I would award the Blue team no points and a stern lecture.

I'm also of the mind that, if a team doesn't dawdle in capping their opponent's goal, they shouldn't be called for goaltending if a ball or two happens to hit the big ball. The goaltending intent was not there, so the goaltending call shouldn't be there.

[Astronouth7303]

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

The issue here is, I believe, intent. The intent of the rule is to prevent teams from building a device that prevents shots from being scored, or using a ball as such a device. The blue team's behavior breaks neither of these rules. Redabot is trying to play the game correctly, by getting the ball to cap a goal, and the blue team is cheaply trying to use a loophole to score some quick points. If I was a ref, I would award the Blue team no points and a stern lecture.

I'm also of the mind that, if a team doesn't dawdle in capping their opponent's goal, they shouldn't be called for goaltending if a ball or two happens to hit the big ball. The goaltending intent was not there, so the goaltending call shouldn't be there.

I agree. If anything, I would penelize blue for goal tending. (Or are human players not eligable for that?) By the sound of it, either blue shot the balls before relizing that red had grabbed the 2x, or threw with the intention of bouncing the 2x out of redabot's grasp.