Answered: <SG8> Autonomous with Large Ball


in this forum thread:

you stated that “The goal here is to eliminate teams that are clearly trying to intentionally control more than 3 BuckyBalls. …] we’re going to go with a lenient interpretation in these more ambiguous cases.”

If it becomes unambiguous in the judgement of the referees throughout the day of the tournament that the use of a large ball in autonomous is specifically to control and (I believe) therefore possess more than 3 BuckyBalls, then is it grounds for disqualification from future matches in which the strategy is used?
There has been some intense debate in our area, and I believe that if the rule is to protect ambiguous cases, then an unambiguous case of intentional over-possession is illegal.

On a related note, would such a DQ apply to all matches, including previous matches, which the team pursued such a strategy and it was match affecting; or, only to matches after having been warned?

No. The leniency here was written in specifically so refs do not have to try and evaluate strategic intent.

Absolutely not. Referees should never be disqualifying teams on actions in past matches based on events of more current matches.