View Single Post
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-02-2010, 01:30
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Bumper idea - legal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery View Post
Rule <R07> discusses the bumpers. Rule <R12-B> discusses removable/reversible covers. The changes to Rule <R12-B> in Update #9 do not affect the fact that Rule <R07> still requires that the BUMPERS be a single, solid red or blue color.
The wording you cite in <R07>, paragraph F is ambiguous, because the removable fabric cover is also "[t]he fabric covering the BUMPERS" (it is fabric, it is a cover, and it is identified as part of the bumpers in <R10> and by implication in the preface to <R07>).

If you interpret <R07F> to deal with the fabric directly enclosing the pool noodles, or all fabric in the bumpers, then I agree, your interpretation is accurate. However, if you interpret the same paragraph to refer instead to the single layer of "fabric covering the BUMPERS", then the combination of <R07> and <R12> does not restrict the colour of the rest of the bumper, when properly covered with a red or blue fabric shroud.

Is the intent of that part of the rule simply to permit clear identification, or also to restrict the selection of fabric colours and markings that will be invisible during matches?
Reply With Quote