I agree that the rules are a little vague, but according to Dave Lavery, that is how the score is determined. We should see an official ruling from FIRST in the next rules update.

You are correct
 

You are correct, my mistake in explaining. However that one box stack whether it count for 1 or 2, depending on the orientation of the box will not count for any points because it is the only box in the scoring zone.

we know it doesn't count because the highest stack only counts as the multiplier, but if you had one on its side would the multiplier be 1 or 2? i see what everyone thinks now, but do we have an concrete answer

It depends on which side.
 

If the box is on the shorter side it would count as 1, but if the box is on the taller side then it would count for 2. Describing shorter or taller is done based on the orginal way the box is orientated.

To make this a little more interesting, an SHU is 15 1/4 in, but a bin is 15 3/4 in. standing right side up, it reaches into the 2 bin height because it isn't nested in another bin.

Your right!!!
 

That will make things interesting!! Very interesting.

bins, 2
 

well, its based on height, if its on its side, it counts for 2, but not upside down, its the same height upside down, it has to be on the lid of another, well, hmm, i have to measure it, ill get back to you.

hmm
 

well, this will be confusing. i hope other people realize this at the competition

that my friend, is exactly why i posted this. today at my teams meeting we spent about 15 minutes trying to figure out, and we think it counts as 1 no matter what orientation it has.....

I want to see the rule everyone gets "Subtract the height of the tallest stack from the base score" from. I didn't see that ANYWHERE in the rules.

As it states in the rules, a bin, not in the highest stack... and touching the scoring area is worth 1 point. If it is in the tallest stack, it is worth nothing. The multiplier is dependant on how tall the total stackage is...

"Stacks"
 

I would like to argue that one bin cannot be qualified as a stack because there has been no stacking done. So no mater how tall any given bin could be it would still not be a stack and therefore not count as a multiplier. This issue does require clarification by FIRST though.

Re: "Stacks"
 

The problem you bring up is a problem with semantics. Your definition of a "stack" seems to be something like "a group of things, at least one of which has been put on another," when FIRST's definition of a "stack" is "one or more bins/crates/boxes/what-have-yous which breaks the plane between the first and second levels of a group of nested bins, and protrudes into, at least, the second level."

If I'm wrong, or mistaken, please correct me. This is just an interpretation of your comment, and of FIRST's scoring system.

You know, FIRST could have saved a TON of headache if they had made the Stack Height be how many bins are in the stack. It would make the game much simpler for spectators, and for coaches trying to quickly figure out a score. I would be happy to see this rule changed to what I have just stated.

there is a reason that FIRST is using the stack measuring device ... Then what would you do if you have a collection of bins after the wall is pushed over and you have multiple bins in a pyramed scheme ... then how do you how many bins would be in the stack? According to your idea, what would you do if you had 4 bins, 2 stacked normally and 1 bin standing tall with the final bin on top of both the 2 high and 1 high stacks.. Would you count the stack height as 2 or 3? With the FIRST rules, it would be 3, no question. And your score would be (4-3)*3=3.