controversial opinion?

[archiver]

Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Other on team #126, No, from what team I haven't decided yet and I don't know how I will!.

Posted on 7/15/99 2:44 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: controversial opinion? posted by Kate on 7/15/99 2:01 PM MST:



As Dan said in one of his other posts.. it's all about your intentions.. and although sometimes those are hard to interpret, you can say it's usually obvious.
There are matches we clamped on to the puck and moved and swung it around. Our intention: to keep other robots off. One match, Quincy was in the process of getting on and we tipped them using the puck. It was clear, however, that our intention was to keep them off, theirs was to get on and the result was them falling over.
In GRTs match, I understand their intention was not to tip #178, I personally think that was pretty clear. But as Dan also stated, their intention was to make their motors back drive, to push their tower back down which can be interpreted as intentionally trying to damage the robot. I don't see real fault in 178 being tipped, I see it in the fact that you weren't just trying to keep their basket from raising, you were trying to push it back down a way it didn't go. The refs saw the potential damage and made the call. You kept going after and their robot was bound to break. That was your intention that I think everyone who I was standing around watching with realized as well.

There's a line between rough play and overboard (we felt the wrath of Naval Undersea in 1997 as, in the semi's of the regionals)

I wish we had gotten a chance to play you guys..