The purpose of G9 is to prevent two robots on one alliance from playing defense at the same time. In my experience, it has been called far more frequently to punish imprecise driving while robots are trying to score on the furthest cargo bay.
G9. One (1) defender at a time. No more than one ROBOT may be positioned such that its BUMPERS break the plane defined by or are completely beyond the opponent’s CARGO SHIP LINE.
G9. One (1) defender at a time. No more than one ROBOT may be positioned such that it is completely beyond the opponent’s CARGO SHIP LINE. G9.5. If a ROBOT is completely beyond the opponent’s CARGO SHIP LINE, no part of a ROBOT on the same ALLIANCE may contact an opposing ROBOT that is completely beyond their CARGO SHIP LINE
I also think this change makes it easier on the refs because they don’t have to monitor the line as closely.
The change could start another C8 fiasco (because the opponent can initiate contact that causes a robot to break a rule). I much prefer the current wording.
Why shouldn’t imprecise driving be penalized? It’s something that’s completely under your control. Also, I tend to try to avoid speculate on the purpose of rules. What’s to say the GDC didn’t intend for precise driving to be valuable? It could also be an unintended but positive effect of the rules. I think analyzing the effect rather than the intent of rules leads rule changes to improve the game (the true objective), rather than further the designers’ intents (not the true objective).
Furthermore, how is the current rule (after the recent update) broken? It seems like it works pretty well to me.
So who does this rule penalize? It doesn’t indicate which alliance.
So if the red alliance had a defender in blue Alliance territory and a different red Alliance bot sloppily drove over the line, and before they could cross back their defender hit a blue alliance bot, would that would be a red Alliance foul?
Also if the red alliance had a defender in blue Alliance territory and a different red Alliance bot sloppily drove over the line, and blue Alliance bot, while trying to place a hatch on the rocket, backed into the red Alliance bot that is on the blue Alliance side of the field, because of their sloppy driving, causing the blue Alliance to drop the hatch, would that be a blue Alliance foul?
Are you trying to propose that the defenders only get penilized if they cross the line intentionality? How do you determine if it was sloppy driving or a strategic planning? How would this rule change help to determine that?
Unfortunately, if that’s the intention, it’s the same problem you get into with C8. It calls for the refs to make a call based on what the drivers are thinking. Which the us no possible way the refs could know so they will always err on the side of caution. Which may lead to actual C8 fouls.
It’s a tough rule. And, unfortunately, it does penalize sloppy driving. So I would advise that if you’re drivers are sloppy they focus on the front end of the cargo ships and allow the more experienced drivers score the back end. If your honest about it during alliance strategy, you should come up with a winning plan that will avoid unnecessary fouls.
All of the scenarios you described would result in a foul for the red alliance.
I don’t think sloppy driving that is inconsequential should be penalized. The sloppy driving in your scenarios all affected the opposing alliance directly and could be considered “defense” so it should be subject to the rule.
If you have a sloppy bot at midline cargo bay and no defender that is ok. This rule only applies when you have a bot on the other side defending. Your alliance should be aware of that and be careful not to also be on the other side past the midline. Plenty of alliances don’t violate the current G9 rule.
The rule has been there since day 1.
A good strategy is to start by reading the rules, then gameplan/design around them
My problem is that it too broadly defines what is considered “defense by two robots” and can be narrowed without enabling more defense. The result of narrowing that definition would be fewer penalties given to alliances who were not defending with two robots.
I don’t have a problem with G9 now that they added the exception.
I suppose I’d prefer that G9 specified “completely beyond” the line instead of “bumpers break the plane,” but I think there’s enough room for an undefended driver who knows the rules to do what they need to do without violating this rule.
If the penalty were for Bumpers completely beyond the line, you could play defense on a Cargo Bay closest to the line while a partner on your alliance also plays defense somewhere beyond the line.
Same issue for OP’s proposed changes. If the goal of G9 is to prevent two defenders, then any changes have to penalize two robots defending the Cargo Bays closest to the opposing Cargo Ship Line. These can be defended without completely crossing the line, which is why the current rule looks at breaking the plane instead.