[RRLedford]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

RRLedford -

We really don't want the entire rule book to go the way of the bumpers - aka super detailed. Take a look at last year's Inspection Checklist - 1/6 of the entire checklist was about the bumpers! If we do that for everything, Inspections will take hours to go though.
Lacking more rigorous and concise language than has so far been offered on the appendage confusion, I don't see how we can finalize our designs.

The definition of contiguous really isn't that difficult to understand in this scenario. Anyone saying the entire robot makes any number of appendages "contiguous" is lawyering (or engineering...) the rules. That's just ridiculous. Your robot isn't the appendage.
Well than tell please tell me what is it that can make anything about your robot become DIS-CONTINUOUS?

As for your suggestion of a frame that extends in all directions... that would be against many rules. First, your frame must be fixed and non-articulated (R01-2). So your "frame" that extends in all directions at once would be extending past all edges of the frame perimeter, not just one (G21).
As I stated, ONLY our frame ABOVE the bumpers would expand. The frame at bumper level would stay fixed where it was. As long as the expanding elements maintained contiguity with each other, this should be legal.

The clear intent of the rules would prohibit extending anything through a corner, as that would pass it through two sides of the frame perimeter. Projecting on a diagonal near the corner, however, is a little less clear in the rules... however as the Q&A emphasizes "single edge" in answering a similar question, I don't think that's legal.

Well if NEITHER single edge would be extended beyond the 14" limit, then which edge would the violation be related to? This example clearly points out the how the rules often overlook things like WHERE THE EDGES INTERSECT, Buckminster Fuller would not appreciate the FIRST Game Rules
as far as how they assume everyone must engineer things in a rectilinear fashion. Some of us think & design diagonally and triangularly.

TLDR: Use some common sense and stop trying to lawyer (or engineer) the rules to your advantage. The inspectors and refs will call you on it.

My common sense is being short circuited by the very weak language surrounding the "appendage" definition, and this problem has lasted much too long.

-RRLedford