View Single Post
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-01-2012, 09:00
wilhitern1's Avatar
wilhitern1 wilhitern1 is offline
Sr. Systems Analyst / BRM
AKA: Neal Wilhite
FRC #1225 (Gorillas)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Hendersinville, NC
Posts: 147
wilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to allwilhitern1 is a name known to all
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squillo View Post
The NEW answer seems to mean that it must be "continguous" past the perimeter. So if the connection is within the perimeter, and it's two separate things outside the perimeter, then it's two appendages, even though they are connected?
To me that seems to be a good point. Additionally, I'd say that they wanted to say that appendage rules don't apply within the vertical perimeter (remembering the vertical cylinder from last year.

Additionally, I'd imagine that your point would be handled very leniently. Imagine one of the hands from last year with two prongs that grab the tube (this year the ball) and are 4 inches long, but the mechanism holding them takes up your other 10 inches. Withdrawn into the robot and facing out, you then have to extend them. At some time only 2 inches are protruding. By rule they are seperate appendages, but not in practice and therefore I think that they will not be ruled as such.