I concur, and this seems like a good idea. Although there is theoretically some harm, there’s much more benefit. Teams struggle to implement fast bumper changes (whether changing entire bumpers, or switching colours), and this suggests a clearly acceptable solution without jumping through the hoops necessary to cover the difficult corners.
The problem with bumpers is that (with some justification), people don’t treat them as difficult because they’re just stupid cushions. How hard could it be? So they’re surprised when it is pointed out to them at inspection that there is no consistent principled basis within the manual to cut them a break when their robot varies from the voluminous bumper rule, and find themselves rushing to comply with the threat of failing inspection hanging over them. Compounding this issue, officials recognize the absurdity of this situation, and inconsistently cut teams breaks, because in the face of disproportionate consequences, justice seems to demand some flexibility.
Lowering the threshold of compliance is a great thing. I just wish we could have gotten to this point several years ago. I wonder if the GDC truly contemplated, over a decade ago when some of these issues were first raised, that their solution of maximal consistency from year to year (in the face of consistent problems) would engender thousands of bad bumper-related experiences while we slowly got to this point.
The bottom line is that now, quick and easy reversible bumpers lack major pitfalls. (As minor pitfalls go, remember to keep the hooks of the hook and loop fasteners off the carpet, and secure everything tightly.) Teams shouldn’t need to physically remove the whole bumper from the robot. This in turn gives teams a better chance of succeeding in mounting the bumpers robustly. This will reduce the number of gameplay incidents, and reduce the effort teams and inspectors spend on getting bumpers ready for competition.