Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik
Here's a device that was intended to block shots, not intended to interfere with sensors, that was forced to be modified. Seems like some head referees are interpreting this rule to mean that any device which blocks a camera, despite the intent, is illegal.
|
Sorry I am late to the discussion but here is what my issue with this entire decision is.
First, It is that there can be teams, who even if they are not designed to play defense, can put a big piece of something on their robot and be a great 3rd robot playing defense (see 1369 at Palmetto in week .5). Now. With this rule in place, if a team claimed that they couldn't shoot because of the big piece of something then even if the LRI had final say at inspection, now when they re-enter the field it is up to the Head Ref to decide whether it is made to block/deter balls or to mess with cameras. If Head Ref determines that it is illegal, now you have what happened at CVR. (Side note. Even if you cut 9" holes in whatever you are using as a blocker... reasonably how well could you line up with the defensive team simply moving back and forth?)
Second, theoretically say a team like 95 (Love the design btw) were to loose the ability to use their arm for a few matches and played defense with it... It's not designed to play defense but it probably would do one heck of a job at it. Now it is up to the Head Ref to determine if they are blocking balls or blocking cameras. Just my opinion.