>If they can do it, we
>can do it.
>
>Slap Kent & Vyxsin technically
>broke a rule by not
>taking the pre-assigned flight:
>I get that. But
>they gained no advantage by
>doing so. What was
>the other option here?
>'We missed our plane and
>we're not allowed to take
>another. Let's just sit
>in the airport until Phil
>comes out to eliminate us.'
> Penalties should hit on
>breaking rules that give you
>an unfair edge or which
>hurt others -- not for
>dropping yourself further back.
>That thirty-minute wait was unfair. I disagree. I think that if the rules say you must do *this* and you don't do it, then you should get penalized. It's like that in every sport. I've seen tons of football games, for example, where a play is called back for holding; and the holding occured in a place where it had zero effect on the play.
My only gripe with the penalty was when it was served. It should have been served before they got their clue from Phil. Yes, that would have had no effect on the overall outcome, of that leg, but if there is a prize awarded to the winners, that's the end of the leg...not a simple "clue box".
Haven't we seen teams penalized before (like Nick and Viki), who quickly caught up during the next leg thanks to a bunching point?