Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen
Just to pick one, since the rest all seem to be along the lines of "yes, we can retroactively dq an alliance".
|
No, they don't really. ONLY T6 and 5.5.4 have that authority. 5.5.3 could cause a DQ, under specious circumstances at best, since Head Ref decisions are final and the Head Ref can choose to do whatever he/she thinks is appropriate. But by the actual letter of the rules, all other applicable rules simply state that the robot must be in compliance with the robot rules before being allowed to continue competing, or must be reinspected.
I still maintain that if 1902 asked the question, checked the weight and was given the OK by an inspector (verbal or otherwise), they passed inspection. Regardless of whether or not the batteries are actually legal ballast, T6 requires a robot to NOT HAVE PASSED INSPECTION. If they passed, no retroactive DQ.
Given the wording of the statement at the venue, as recorded on the RoboShow broadcast, the word "egregious" was used. That indicates that it may have been 5.5.4 that was called, not T6. Which sucks, because it implies the Head Ref thinks that they were clearly and intentionally breaking the rules.
I still think that T6 is what was actually trying to be called. I just disagree that if 1902 went through the formally informal process of getting their robot re-weighed and checked over by inspectors, as is customary for re-inspections, they shouldn't have been assessed a T6 because they were passed. They could have been told that they had to address the situation before playing another match, but that's as far as the applicable rules (T7) go.
T10 could be construed to kick over to T6 if modifications were made and a match was played, but that whole link is a little fuzzy. T10 says you have to be re-inspected, but doesn't say that your robot is considered "uninspected" until such re-inspection happens. That is how it is generally enforced and assumed to imply.