[EricH]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Eric, I'm curious what you consider "enforceable" in the rules. If the LRI rules that velcro is a "similar attachment" as metal, sandpaper, hard plastic studs or cleats, then why isn't it enforceable by the LRI? I will point out section 5.5.2 of the Tournament section of the rule book:

And that's the part that's going to get an awful lot of complaining. Metal and hard plastic are hard (and possibly sharp), sandpaper is abrasive. How is Velcro, which is a rather soft plastic, a similar attachment to metal or sandpaper? This is what the teams will contend, if they want to argue the ruling. Velcro is neither abrasive nor hard, and as Joe pointed out, was removed from the rules in question and thus, by someone with some knowledge of that fact, could be argued to be intentionally omitted from said rules and therefore legal. Given that, it's going to be very difficult to enforce without looking arbitrary--or pointing out that you're simply preventing the team from running afoul of G10, which usually isn't under the LRI's enforcement without the Head Ref sending a team there.

Hence getting the Head Ref involved early. (This will also serve notice to the Head Ref and FTA to watch that robot for field damage.)



Of course, there's the obvious result of this thread to consider--I'm guessing the GDC makes a note to include Velcro in the R6 equivalent next year, making the discussion moot.


(To some extent, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I agree that the LRI would generally be able to enforce it. Just looking for all the loopholes a team might possibly try to use to justify this use of Velcro, and ways to block them.)