View Single Post
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 16:51
Mark Sheridan's Avatar
Mark Sheridan Mark Sheridan is offline
Head Mentor
FRC #3476 (Code Orange)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 561
Mark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory View Post
Thus I think it is a stretch to make T6 all encompassing and suddenly say that it applies to any instance in which a robot may be non-compliant with the rules.
I agree with Cory. I thought its fair to assume robots are legal until evidence is shown that they are not. Innocent until proven guilty. In autoracing, a car would not be DQ's because they did not alert inspectors that they might be in violation to the rules. The car would be reinspected to determine if the car has a violation. Even violations carry different penalties. Bent frames carry no penalties but a engine displacement violation carries a huge suspension.

We could be like Golf where filling out your score card wrong can get you into trouble but that would be ridiculous. T6 needs to be cleared up. If a robot is suspect to be gaining an advantage by violating a rule, reinspect the robot to find evidence. We can't be DQ'ing robots with no evidence.
__________________
Team 3476| Mentor| 2014 - Current
Team 3309| Mentor| 2011 - 2016
Team 766 | Mentor| 2006 - 2011 | Alumnus | 2002-2005
Reply With Quote