Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jgannon
Actually, in football, you need only break the plane of the goal line with the ball to be considered "in" the end zone. Thus, all three definitions of "zone" seem to imply three-dimensional space, contrary to the loading zone definition. I now have a better understanding of why people are so darn confused. 
<edit>
Someone just PMed me an explanation of how an endzone can also be 2D. When a receiver catches the ball in the corner of the end zone, his feet have to touch the ground in-bounds. No touch? Doesn't count. Makes sense to me. *shrug*
</edit> |
To cut this short, that same football player is also in if he lands on his back, or his knees, or, his head. As long as he retains possession of the ball.
All I am saying is, to the common observer it will be blatantly obvious (rule 978) that our robot is in, on, completely covering, the loading zone. But for some reason I have lost sleep the past few nights wondering if the ref's will see it the same way. My kids robot will probably be one of the safer in terms of removing tetras from the auto loading station but for some odd reason it may not be legal.
I have been doing this for 6 years and FIRST has never really disappointed me. If this ruling stands as is ....