|
|
|
 And while I am not that big on hero-worship, I am pretty darn proud to know Dave. However, this does not mean that I will stop picking on him - MissInformation [more] |
 |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
| And while I am not that big on hero-worship, I am pretty darn proud to know Dave. However, this does not mean that I will stop picking on him - MissInformation [more] |
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#8
10-03-2002, 01:02
|
||||
|
||||
|
Speaking for the VCU side of things, FIRST was wishy-washy up to the last second. During the operator meeting on Thursday morning, FIRST said that they were going to be strict on the ruling with tethers. Even if an opponent pushed a goal onto your tether, you would still be DQ'ed for being under a goal. Anything that could entangle, no matter when it was deployed, would be cancelled out. This was of no surprise to our team for this is basically what FIRST has been saying all along.
Friday morning comes and then it is announced that anything that passed inspection is legal and that as long as you didn't intentionally go under a goal you were fine. There were many toe-touchers out there that were entanglement issues but apparently will be allowed in the future as long as no one actually gets entangled. Which way is it going to be?  ~Tom Fairchild~ 
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Tethers...return of an idea from last year. | Josh Hambright | Rules/Strategy | 6 | 01-05-2003 23:57 |
| Help Tom Gray graduate from MIT | archiver | 2001 | 6 | 24-06-2002 03:31 |
| You want a piece of me??? Joe's Tote | Joe Johnson | General Forum | 39 | 08-04-2002 18:51 |
| tethers to both goals. | Perseus | General Forum | 8 | 24-03-2002 22:12 |
Threaded Mode