Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuttyman54
From my interpretation, the sequence of events would probably be:
1) Team A places their robot on field, with a shot blocker
2) Team A plays match, successfully blocks vision and no shots
3) After a visit to the question box, and convincing by a team, the Head Referee determines Team A's robot was in violation of G7-A at the start of the match
4) The Head Referee notifies Team A that the blocker must be removed, or he will disable them at the start of their next match for G7.
Is it right? There is clearly a disagreement between the Head Referee and the LRI as to what constitutes as an R9 violation, since the LRI passed the robot through inspection. Ultimately, however, the Head Referee's decisions are final and he/she may make the interpretation that a mechanism violates G7 and refuse to allow the team to play a match until it is remedied. This sequence and rule gives the Head Referee ultimate discretion as to the legality of any part of a robot. While I'm not saying it will go to this extreme, the Head Referee certainly has the authority to disable a robot he/she believes is in violation of a robot rule.
|
this is not correct. Per the tournament rules,
Quote:
|
At each event, the Lead ROBOT Inspector (LRI) has final authority on the legality of any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT. Inspectors may re-Inspect ROBOTS to ensure compliance with the rules.
|
The head ref can talk with the LRI, share concerns over mechanisms And robots (and believe me, this happens frequently!), But they can't overrule the LRI on a robot rule.
Please, quote the rulebook where it gives the head ref the power to disable a robot for violation of a robot rule. There are specific game rules that reference specific robot rules with consequences (like the bumper rules), and there are game rules that mirror robot rules (like starting configuration). But there's nothing like what you've described here.