[meaubry]

Fixit,
Glad to see that you updated your info. Now it makes sense why you are attempting to gain a better understanding for the ref's decision.

As I said before, unless Aiden decides to respond - you/we will never know WHY? That is his choice.

For everyone else that saw it or didn't see it - we are all speculating why the ref made the call. Only he knows why.

All year (every year) there are inconsistancies in the way rules are interpretted and decision regarding penalties are made. This year is no different - this match is no different.

Bumpers or no bumpers - robots are not suppose to be designed to flip others over (passively or otherwise). We've been through that debate at nauseum, over the past years (led to the no wedge shape rule). The circular debate of whom is at fault (the one that drove on top, or the one that drove underneath, or the one that just sat there and innocently did nothing) is never ending. The only people that truely know are the students controlling the machines - they know if they were driving forward, backing away, or doing neither.

I suppose we could ask for another build regulation regarding what the ends of the robots with out bumpers MUST be designed to meet, in order to help mitigate the problem. I just hate to see another requirement that could constrain creativity and suck away materials and resources to meet it.

Debating what rules were or weren't interpretted by the ref in order to rationalize a particular call, won't change anything - now or in the future.

As you suggested in an earlier post, I'll leave this one open as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

Mike Aubry
Engineering Lead
Chief Delphi