Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisH
Dave,
You're right, I should not have referenced a particular team, even obliquely. I have removed the reference from my post. (I can't do anything about your quote) There were many teams that had light placement that violated the letter of the rule as originally written, but were allowed to compete. There is no wrong in taking advantage of a change in the rules.
I was wrong and I apologize. Thank you for the correction.
Chris H
|
Chris,
I wouldn't be so quick to apologize. You were absolutely correct. There WERE several teams that violated the letter of the rule, not only as originally written, but after it was thoroughly rehashed, clarified, and restated again and again on the FIRST Q&A board and this forum. (Try to find team 1010's light during the webcasts of the Lone Star Regional elimination matches. Great robot, good matches, but no light visible ever.)
There may be no wrong in taking advantage of a change in the rules after the fact, but in my opinion these teams CAUSED the change in the rule, due to their ignoring it. The teams that followed the rules and displayed their light correctly had to make decisions and trade offs not required by the teams that broke the rules as repeatedly stated. I'm sorry, but I have to have a little less respect for teams that caused this, and for the inspectors that passed a robot that was clearly in violation of a pretty clear rule.
Yes, the ref's ruling is final, but it can still be wrong, and pointing it out may make for better decisions next year. This failure to enforce rules (lights, batteries, cylinders, last year's tethers, etc.) is one of the few flaws in the program. Let's try to fix them rather than rationalizing them.
Respectfully,
Bruce C.