In this thread I asked how a referee might make these “common sense interpretations” and you said the following reply made sense:
I interpreted this as A robot can restrict access as long as it is blocks off less than half of the field, and does not extend across one or both scoring zones, cutting the field into two separate regions. *see note at end
to which you replied:
I’ll try to summarize these latest answers. Referees make a judgement call, and normal scoring robots wont violate the rule but walls might or might not. If they block off 2/3 of the area they are definitely illegal, but they could also be illegal even if they do not. If a robot blocks less than half the field, and does not extend all the way across one or both scoring zones, it would be legal, but there could be a robot that violated one of these and still be legal.
There’s obviously a lot of intentional ambiguity here, and I’m not sure why as it will ensure that referees enforce the rule completely differently across events, and leave teams in the dark about what they can build and what they might come up against.
This appears to be legal, as it does not violate either of the two conditions of taking up more than half the field or crossing both scoring zones. Assume the blue robots will try to enter the zone blocked by the red robot at some point.
Are these conditions valid for enforcing this rule?
If the robot extended all the way to the back wall it would violate condition 2, would this make it illegal?
Could different referees be justified in ruling this robot both legal and illegal because of their own personal views on the matter?
*note I left out actively trying to enter the blocked region from the conditions, since the opponents could choose to do this at any point during the match. It also makes the logic less confusing. Otherwise legality = NOT ((taking up more than half the field OR crossing both zones) AND trying to enter)