Quote:
Originally Posted by jvriezen
My totally unofficial, but unambiguous interpretation of the writings of the GDC.
An appendage is considered a single appendage if, during its normal extension for usage outside the frame perimeter, all appendage components which intersect the frame perimeter projection are contiguously connected entirely outside the frame perimeter projection.
This would allow a 'fork' like appendage to not break the rule when only the tines of the fork are intersecting the frame perimeter during its deployment, but the normal usage of the fork appendage would need to be such that the portion connecting the tines must also be out of the perimeter projection as it is used.
And I don't think it matters if one tine of the fork is used to manipulate balls, and the other tine is used for moving the bridge -- multipurpose appendages are fine.
|
I would have to respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning. Other than the fact that it is redundant ("contiguously connected") a
contiguous assembly must mean that it is simply connected... the new answer does not say that it has to be contiguous OUTSIDE the frame perimeter. I quote directly from Q&A:
" To elaborate, an Appendage is a contiguous assembly that may extend beyond the Frame Perimeter per Rule [G21]."
I looked at the old wording "an appendage, when extended beyond the Frame Perimeter, is a contiguous assembly" and this simply doesn't make sense...you can't define a contiguous assembly as one that extends beyond the frame perimeter..you define it by the definition of contiguous (ie connected). They were simply cleaning up the answer.
If it looks like an appendage, quacks like an appendage and moves like an appendage...it is an appendage... contiguous means connected..connected could possibly mean moving all at once... but wouldn't have to ..
I think that Q and A is sufficiently clear on this topic. I also think it is unambiguous.