[Andy Grady]

I read this on the Q&A today

Q. Would a passive device applying force to multiple sides of the 2x2 angle on the bridge to partially/fully support robot weight violate [G10] if it didn’t actively clamp/grasp/attach to the angle, so that at match end the robot can be lifted off the bridge w/out actuating/releasing any mechanism(s)?
A. The purpose of this forum is to answer questions about rules, not to perform design reviews for legality.

This is an extremely valid question that needs an answer. What is FIRST's definition of grasp, attach, or grapple? I thought the question was asked perfectly, and it could have major implications on a number of overall robot designs. FIRST should not constantly use the "We do not do design reviews" answer. While in some cases the answer may be warranted, in many cases, the best way to clearly express a question is in a form which explains a design of a particular element. This is a design competition, if you can't answer a question of legality of a design element, then you should not be able to tell a team that uses a design that falls within a grey area of a certain rule that they cannot use a robot. If you leave a rule open to interpretation because you don't want to do a "design review" then you must be prepared to allow a team's interpretation of the rule, flat out.

Am I wrong here? This is not the first time I have seen an answer in this year's Q&A that made me completely frustrated.