Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryVoshol
There is no provision in the rules for a 10-point penalty. As I recall, neither was there a provision for a penalty for exceeding the 72" square last year - the correct sanction should have been to disable the robot.
|
This hasn't necessarily stopped refs from assigning one in the past. I remember that my team got a 10-pt penalty at an off-season event for having a member not wearing safety goggles. There was no rule (that I am aware of, and I've read through the rulebook multiple times) that states that refs can assign this penalty. So I agree with you on this one Gary.
Anne, I also am a little concerned about the answer to which you're referring. To me, egregious means more than just a simple violation, and really has more of a connotation of implied intent. In other words, if you designed a robot that would somehow expand to be 200'' with the intent of expanding to block other robots, and somehow got this through inspection, and then did this on the field, I would consider that to be "egregious." To put it another way, the words "egregious" and "accidental" don't work together, in my view.
As others have stated, it seems impractical to call this. I really don't understand the point of the yellow and red cards anyway (to me it's like a dunce cap and not really in the spirit of GP, though that's another discussion), but it's more serious that just a penalty because it affects the rest of the competition. So, in other words, if my team's robot was maybe a little bit out of the sizing box (maybe) and a ref called a 10-pt penalty, I might complain a little to myself, but if it were a yellow card, I would be more upset.
So yeah, I'm not really understanding this.
-Paul