[Tristan Lall]

I seriously hope they realize that defining an appendage based on its construction is a losing game.

Thought experiment: I have a plastic toy trident which can be installed on my robot in several possible orientations, and which can be actuated in several ways during a match. (Imagine the craziest possible positions for this thing, with varying degrees of overhang, flexibility, etc..) If I poll 5 trained, experienced referees about the legality of all of these configurations, can I expect to get 5 identical, correct sets of answers? What if I repeat the test with 5 GDC members?

Almost certainly, the answer is no. Nobody knows what an appendage is, or where it begins, because that definition is not in the rules, and does not obviously follow from an ordinary person's understanding of any given robot design.

Mechanisms can do all sorts of weird stuff, and can take all sorts of forms. You don't want to end up with a definition that makes something an appendage in some positions, and two or more appendages in others. It's also a bad idea because it's non-obvious, and will be full of nuanced interpretations. Good luck getting every referee to call that the same way every time.*

The real way forward is to fix the definitions of frame perimeter and side (so that they properly account for curvilinear figures, and elegantly handle projections into the corners adjacent to two sides), and then allow only one side to be overhung at a time. No mention of what's overhanging, or how many—just a clear test that be applied by a referee with no knowledge of how various mechanisms are actuated.

*That's most assuredly not a slight against referees. The fact is, all officials will struggle with complicated definitions applied to complicated robots. Referees have the additional problem that their struggle takes place in real time, in front of an audience. The stakes are high for them, and they'll be expected to get this right. That's not easy.