Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Montois
Per FIRST Q & A, Emphasis mine...
Q. Per this rule, would a device that utilizes a passive "appendage" deployed over the center line barrier (bump) to prevent your machine from being moved or twisted when hit (by applying forces to opposing sides of the barrier be considered a violation of this rule? Please elaborate on rule intent.
A. The intent of Rule [G10] is stated in its opening sentence, "Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure." While, we cannot comment on the legality of a specific design, holding on to a field element is considered grappling and a violation of Rule [G10].
Q. Is it permissable for a robot on the bridge to extend a device that can also react off the bottom surface of the bridge provided that device does not grasp the bridge firmly?
A. Rule [G10] does not put a qualifier on how a Robot may legally grasp the Bridge. It simply says it cannot do it.
I feel like they might be in trouble...
|
Here is the Merrian-Webster Definition of holding:
4
a : to have or maintain in the grasp <hold my hand> <this is how you hold the racket>; also : aim, point <held a gun on them>
b :
to support in a particular position or keep from falling or moving <hold me up so I can see> <hold the ladder steady> <a clamp holds the whole thing together> <hold your head up>
c : to bear the pressure of : support <can the roof hold all of that weight>
Ok. I really do like the idea, but it does seem like by the definition they are holding on the field element, and therefore violating that Q&A response.
What do you guys think on this ruleing?