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?