Our team is discussing whether you could be penalized if:
-You are pushed into the opposing bridge by the opponent
-You are pushed into the opposing alley by the opponent
Rules G25, G28, G44, and G45 seems to describe this but it is still unclear whether you could cause penalties by pushing opponents into your bridge/alley.
If you have any clue or have an interpretation of this, please add your view and make sure that this is noted!
Thanks.
Please, also vote in the poll!
Another potential situation that is similar is if you’re in the opposing alley and there isn’t an opposing robot in it. If an opposing robot drives into and pins you there, you incur a penalty.
Let’s also say an opposing robot is shooting from their key. They could partially move out of it to contact you as you’re driving by, and transitively, you again incur a penalty.
In general, I believe that yes, the GDC IS allowing teams to cause penalties to be assessed on another team this year.
Edit - Just to be clear, simply being in an opposing alley or key is not against the rules. It’s only against the rules IF there is an opposing robot in an opposing alley or key with you.
That’s what I thought too, but is it actually exploitation? That’s what we need to know.
Let’s go through the rules again and look at a) where your opponent needs to be and b) negations of rules.
[G25]
Robots may not contact or otherwise interfere with the opposing Alliance Bridge.
Violation: Technical-Foul. If the act of Balancing is interfered with, also a Red Card and the Bridge will be counted as Balanced.
[G28]
Robots may not touch an opponent Robot in contact with its Key, Alley, or Bridge.
Violation: Foul; Technical-Foul for purposeful, consequential contact.
This rule applied at all times, no matter who initiates the contact, see [G44].
[G44]
Generally, a rule violation by an Alliance that was directly caused by actions of the opposing Alliance will not be penalized. Rule [G28] is an exception to this rule.
[G45]
Strategies exploiting Rule [G44] are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed.
Violation: Technical-Foul and Red Card
If you are pushed into your opponent’s bridge, that is a violation of [G25], caused by an opponent. [G44] applies because [G25] is not an exception, so no penalty is given. If you push your opponent into your bridge, no free points for you!
If you are pushed into your opponent’s key, alley, or bridge, there is no penalty until they make contact with that area. However, once they make contact with that area, [G28] applies, and you get a foul. [G44] does not apply because [G28] is the exception to the rule.
Now, the million-point question is, if someone is repeatedly shoving their opponents into their own key, alley, or bridge far enough to make contact themselves, does [G45] come into play to slow down the [G28] violations being racked up? I haven’t seen anybody say anything for sure. I would expect to see a clarification come out this week on that.
If I was reffing this (keep in mind, however, that I am not and never have been an official FIRST ref) I would draw a line between earning a foul as part of game play (RED takes a shot, then hits a blue robot as they leave the key pursuing a rebound, or attempting to go to a bridge to get another ball) and intentionally trying to draw a foul (RED trying to line up for a shot in their key and for no reason but the foul decides to go hit a blue robot that wandered too close, then tries to line up again, finally taking the shot).
But, that’s just me, and I don’t think that exactly goes with the way the rules are written. Personally, I expect this to be addressed a little more thoroughly in a rule update in the near future.
I think in the end, this will be the deciding factor. However, it could be changed anyway in the next couple days/weeks.
Thanks bro, your answer helps.
Anderson Varejao would love this game. 
Only [G28]. For all other rules, [G44] applies, and you cannot cause your opponent to commit a foul.
I think G45 takes precedence a team is noted attempting to make opposing incur penalties via G28 and the move is intentional. I believe that usage would meet the definition of “exploiting this exception as a strategy”
As always, Q&A and Team Updates should clarify this ambiguity really quickly.
Honestly, I can’t imagine the GDC intentionally leaving a hole in the rules that allows a defensive bot that cannot manipulate the game piece to score as well or better than a robot who interacts with the game piece. That’s not in the spirit of FIRST at all.
This situation is different, but we got DQed from the semi finals at SD for being pushed into the scoring zone twice last year. I believe if the refs have the same mentality, you will get fouls for getting pushed in.