[Kevin Sevcik]

This is where the GDC's policy of not commenting on specific designs comes back to bite some poor head ref at an early regional. I think you should post one more Q&A pointing out that if the GDC doesn't rule on this type of design, a head ref is going to rule for them. Possibly multiple head refs, all coming to different conclusions. Which we all really, really hate.

Personally, I'd lean toward it being legal under G10, for reasons similar to what Justin states. It's certainly not grabbing the bridge. I think 118 is still going to have some challenges proving it doesn't damage the field. Also, I think this plays all kinds of heck with the bumper rules. Per Team Update 2012-01-20, the bumper zone seems to be defined in reference to the flat floor the robot is currently sitting on. 118 pretty clearly isn't sitting on any floor when balancing like that, so i'm unsure what the bumper zone is referenced to at that point. To be on the safe side, i'd want to make sure my bumpers are always in the bumper zone even if that hanging mechanism is off the bridge and the bot is sitting tilted on the floor.

Practically speaking, however, if I had this balancing mechanism, I'm not sure I'd care if it was legal per G10 or not. A G10 violation is a 3-point foul. A third balanced robot is +20 point in elims. I'm pretty sure I'd take that foul every time even if it is deemed illegal.