YMTC: Is it goaltending?

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

That is exactly why intent should be factored in; otherwise, the whole reason the goaltending rule exists is perverted, and I'll explain why. First of all, regarding judging intent*, refs in athletic sports do it all the time -- it's a part of the game -- and so do FIRST ones, even though they may be officially instructed otherwise (I cite the example of tipping other robots). It's pretty reasonable to say that if both robots are fighting over the ball, the intent of Redabot is not to block shots (this is a judgement [sic] the ref can safely make, and if there is an argument everyone must remember a ref's call is final).

And how exactly have you determined that "unless intent is factored in, the whole reason the goaltending rule exists is being perverted?" Do you KNOW the exact reason that the goaltending rule was written, and the intent of those that wrote the rule? Unless you have explicit knowledge of the intent of the rule-writers, then all you are doing is guessing about their intent. And your guess is biased by your beliefs, personality, values, experiences, and preconceived notions. It is subjective, and of minimal value in the determination of the actual intent of those that wrote the rule. Therefore, your guess of their intent is fundamentally useless when trying to determine the actual intent. The only way to accurately identify the intent is to get it straight from those that wrote the rule, by asking them and letting them provide the answer.

And that is exactly why asking the referees to determine intent and apply that estimation to a rules interpretation is absurd. The referees cannot accurately determine the intent of a team just by observation. There is no way for them to identify what was in the minds of the team at the time a perceived violation took place. There is no reasonable way to identify the team intent in the context of an ongoing game, and it is unreasonable to try to determine it after the fact (I can just see it now - referees hooking up team members to lie detectors in between rounds to determine whether they meant to violate a rule or not...).

Since intent cannot be accurately determined by remote observation, and accurate determination of intent in the context of the game is unreasonable, any estimation of intent is by definition inaccurate. Since it is inaccurate, it must be ignored.

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

* I should note that 'the Blue Alliance throwing balls toward their mobile goal' is a judgement [sic] of intent by the ref. How does (s)he know that the human player was throwing a ball at his/her own goal and not simply directly at a robot? Since the ref won't call a ball thrown at a robot in open field goaltending, the ref is judging the intent of the human player in order to ascertain whether or not to award a penalty.

No, it's not. Determination of whether the ball is being thrown towards the mobile goal or not is a straightforward decision. Either it is heading toward the goal, or it isn't. The presence or absence of an opposing robot is irrelevant to the determination.

If, by any reasonable estimation by any reasonable person, the ball is heading toward a goal on the field (please don't be a Clinton and make me define the term "toward"!!!), then it is heading toward the goal. If the ball is obviously going into an area of the field where there is no goal, then it is not heading toward a goal - whether there is another robot there or not.

Note that the referee does not have to estimate whether the ball has a high probability of going in the goal, or if it is going to hit the goal, or if it would fly straight in without touching the posts. Under the instructions that the referees are given (reference: notes from weekly telecon between Benje Ambrogi and regional head referees), all they have to do is decide if the ball - if the flight path were uninterrupted by the goaltending robot - COULD have hit the goal. If that is the case, and the flight path was interrupted by the opposing robot (including a 2X ball being held by the robot), then the goaltending rules apply.

This whole discussion illustrates exactly why the referees need to stick to strict interpretation of the rules. Attempts to determine a team's intent is, by definition, subjective and open to multiple interpretations. Observable facts are not. In this example, the facts are clear. The rules are clear. The intent of the team is indeterminate, and therefore irrelevant. You may not like it, but those are the rules.

-dave