Edit: I’m incorrect below so ignore that! Hopefully there’s at least some secret guidance to head refs about calling these penalties in a more reasonable way.
Wrong: Great to see FIRST define “initiate contact” in the blue box! Cool to see such a quick response to community feedback.
Am I mistaken or did this blue box already exist?
I believe you are correct.
I’m glad they added momentary to G108, idk how common it was but our alliance partners in semis went over for a second and we ended up losing that match (we would have tied, ending up winning based on tiebreakers, but its a welcome change)
This doesn’t actually address the community feedback regarding G204, the rule still encourages defensive robots to draw meaningless G204 fouls, and allows referee’s to call G204 with an incredible level of inconsistency as was the case Week 1.
-Mike
Only the highlighted section changed, the blue box already existed.
It was being called highly inconsistently both at our event and across events. That match would have been a win because we owned the tiebreaker (no fouls, more Hangar points).
The G108 change is a good one, but it really sucks that it’s occurring after it cost us a match and a chance at a rubber match.
Well my third robot pick list strategy hasn’t changed then unfortunately 
I’ll be drafting whoever can best draw contact inside frame perimeter penalties until this is addressed.
I’m pretty sure we were on your alliance, royals cyberknights chainlynx right? (iirc gpk alliance #3)
Direct result of Week 1 unseen harsh rules called as written. Glad they added “momentary” that adds leeway for Teams. Nice to know edge cases won’t ruin and awarded Traversal climb. I don’t see a lot of radical change in the inside perimeter one, expect that to still be common if week 2 plays like week 1. IMO
Glad to see we don’t have to have cameras in the stands sitting inline with the top of the traversal rung now.
2019 had some real 
moments with higher climbs and any referee shorter than 7’ attempting to make a call on that.
Credit where it is due, this is a nice addition and I hope it stays around.
Even if you had camera footage, I don’t think the refs are allowed to look at it, right? What is the purpose of having the cameras?
Scouting, replaying game footage
I’m curious why this is a good change. Not because I don’t think it helps teams, but purely because this is a major difference from the rules as they were written when the game was released.
Just like in 2013 with the orientation of the “cylindrical” shape the robot had to fit in at all times, we made major design decisions to ensure we didn’t violate rules like g108. The choice we made was slower and more complicated, but doesn’t swing.
Why is it a good thing to make the rules work for teams that ignored/overlooked a clearly written guideline?
Overall, I don’t really care. I have loved seeing all the amazing and crazy ways that teams have attacked the climb challenge this year. But I’m never a fan of changing things after a season starts that have a major effect on a huge part of the robot design considerations.
I agree, while the change lightens the likelyhood of triggering an invalidated climb. That sure doesn’t help teams called for it in week 1. As well as makes the efforts of teams that designed there climb not to trigger the original rule, not as valuable. They could have spent that design planning time somewhere else.
Not scouting; you have the footage to check internally and adjust if you actually violated a rule, and if not, show to the relevant people to demonstrate their rule not working.
Because as it was written, it could be called on you even if it is physically impossible (as ruled by the LRI at the event upon request) for your robot to perform the action (I’m totally not bitter about this from 2019 still). Parallax viewing is real and referees are people who can make mistakes. This seems like a good change.
I hope the question box and undeniable proof that it is physically impossible would remove this concern.
Our referees and RI’s have been great about talking back and forth and checking to make sure that things work the way we say they do when there is a question of legality on an item.