Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Hill
Is the burden of proof on inspectors to find a rule to disqualify or on the teams to prove they are compliant? Historically, it's been the former.
|
Correct. However, in this case, the suggestion to have the officials check (given that Q&A does not give a clear answer) is so that the LRI (who right now does not have a clear rule to disqualify
that he can enforce) and the Head Referee (who
does have a rule that can be enforced) can be on the same page with a particular implementation. It also allows for a more reasonable discussion than if the Head Referee simply disables the team in their first match and sends them back to inspection--by the team coming to the LRI and Head Referee and saying "We have a Q&A ruling on this design that is vague, and the rules are vague, can we get a check on this?", the team makes it clear that they want to work with the event staff to be able to compete, and the LRI and the Head Referee are on the same page going forwards.
Now, there are some items where a team does have the burden of proof that they are legal, should an inspector challenge them on it. Namely, electric solenoid actuators (for power rating), servos (same), and pneumatic components (pressure rating, compressor specs, and the like). If an inspector challenges, you need to have the documentation, or be able to produce it before your next official match, or the inspector may assume the device is illegal and require it to be disabled. But the inspector does need to say something... (or you could just show him the item and the paperwork).
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons
"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk
