There is no "Defense Agreement"

graciousprofessionalism

#1

This is to summarize two different threads.

Immediate and necessary rule change!

and

Violations of C8 unnoticed and rewarded by Referees

There have been a lot of argument on both sides. On one side it is un-sportsmanship, on the other it is strategic.

A lot of teams seem to have entered (unknowingly) into a defensive agreement.
"We allow you to have one defender of your choice and you allow us to have one defender of our choice"

The issue then comes when one side breaks that agreement and makes the choice for the other team. They say “no, we don’t want your defender bot, we want your scoring bot” and forces them over.

HQ has already said this is legal to which others are saying C8 is dead.

Arguments:

  • You are causing a team to foul
  • counter
    You are not causing the alliance to foul
    They are causing an otherwise normal def move to be a foul on you by having a bot on your side to begin with C8^2

  • We do not have time for our defender to get back
  • counter
    You are playing too deep, change your strategy
  • counter counter
    You only have to break the plane and so in order to score near the end of the cargo ship you pretty much CAN’T play defense which is a broken mechanic
    concur to the bad rule

  • We had a defender over there BEFORE they made the choice to push us
  • counter
    Your defender has no protected right to be on the other side of the field

Can the rule change? I believe so.

  • Change breaking the plane to crossing completely. Even if you are pushed, this gives your defender at least a little more time to react and get across themselves.
  • If you are PUSHED into the plane, you are given a 5s count for either you OR your teammate to cross back to your side of the field

#2

Please see my post here as a potential email to FIRST (sent by each team) for combating this issue. Open to suggestions/ideas for the email’s contents.


closed #3