Go to Post Earlier today, I finally saw a copy of the [WFA] essay that was submitted by my team (there will be a separate reckoning later with all those that kept this a secret from me). The narrative overwhelmed me. - dlavery [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-15-2010, 11:25 PM
Nuttle89 Nuttle89 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Ben Nuttle
FRC #5332
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 9
Nuttle89 has a spectacular aura aboutNuttle89 has a spectacular aura about
Re: Rules that I think should be changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2641Captain View Post
I want everyone's opinion on two rules that I think are too harsh. The two rules I am referring to are:

<G34> FINALE PERIOD ROBOT Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in contact with their TOWER or in contact with an ELEVATED ALLIANCE partner may not be contacted by an opponent. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

<G35> FINALE PERIOD TOWER Protection - During the FINALE, ROBOTS in may not contact the OPPONENT’S TOWER. Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact.

There are two real problems with these rules that I can think of. First, as a part of playing good defense it is a good idea to block the tower without touching it, but it is very hard from my experience to see when you are close to the tower and if you are actually touching it. Second, the second half of the rules talks about obvious intentional contact. This is up to interpretation and I believe that it is a lot of pressure to put on an official, and it is difficult to really tell what someone's intentions are.

I would like to recommend that the rule is kept, but changed slightly with a less severe penalty such as a loss of points or a yellow card. I think a RED CARD should only be used for something that really has changed the game in a way that mischievous.

Let me know what you think.
I think what is in greatest need of clarification here is "obviously intentional contact." Based on the redcard offense, one would think "malicious" would be a better suited term. I can easily see a justifyable redcard for teams who intentionally try to ram hanging robots off the tower.

I suppose what really is at stake here: Is the rule a measure of safety or strategical limitation? That is, is the rule in place solely to discourage hanging defence, or is it more the issue of robot + gravity = bad? Perhaps Q&A will have an answer...
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation? martin417 Rules/Strategy 37 03-09-2010 02:13 AM
Should the requirements for President be changed? Billfred Chit-Chat 31 09-21-2004 05:33 PM
Has FIRST Ever Changed Rules During Nationals? IMDWalrus General Forum 2 04-08-2003 03:29 PM
Class That Most Changed Your Life Joe Matt Chit-Chat 19 03-09-2003 10:04 PM
Should anything be changed? Jamiepatt General Forum 5 06-27-2001 09:04 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39 AM.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi