There's a distinction between "official" (it is issued on FIRST's authority, usually by the GDC) and "enforceable" (it is binding upon FRC participants, because a rule mandates it). The Q&As are official, but not directly enforceable. Instead, they reference official rules (from the book) that are enforceable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lucas
Actually it is more like this:
FIRST HQ>Head Ref>Team Update>The Manual>Q&A
|
My interpretation (particularly in cases of inspection) has been that the rules must be enforced. Where an update changes a rule, that new rule is what's enforceable. I view that as the dominant principle because teams are clearly and uniformly advised of the rules and of the expectation that they be followed. Until FIRST specifically designates an authority other than the latest rules, this is the most equitable way to proceed. (I don't view the lead officials as being authorities in their own right: their rulings stand, but their rulings aren't intrinsically correct, just because they made them. I address headquarters below: unless they change the rules, what they say is official but unenforceable.)
As I see it, Q&A responses (and non-rule portions of updates) stand out among official, unenforceable communications because of their visibility to teams. Since teams are specifically instructed where to find this information, they are a signal to the teams and the officials that FIRST believes the rules should be interpreted in a particular way. If that addresses a plausible ambiguity in the rule, then the matter is resolved—the Q&A has clarified the existing meaning without introducing any new constraints. If unresolved interpretations remain, or if the Q&A cannot be logically applied to the rule, then it's up to the officials to fall back on the rules themselves.
1 In these cases, teams should be given the benefit of conforming to any reasonable interpretation of the rule.
In terms of other official, but unenforceable actions, I draw a parallel between a GDC interpretation for the convenience of the on-site officials (often requested by phone) and the Q&As. These are timely and important suggestions that the rule is correctly interpreted in a particular way—but the competition officials must make the final calls themselves, based on the observed facts and the rules, of their own accord, pursuant to the authority vested in them by FIRST. The officials must pay particular attention to equity, especially because these communications are not broadcast to the FRC community through the usual channels. If these things can all be reconciled, then so much the better.
Similarly, an e-mail from frcteams, while official, cannot be held to be binding upon non-parties to the conversation—and because it's not binding on non-parties, it's hard to rule it's binding on the parties themselves, because that would constitute special treatment (which is only justifiable in special cases, such as when the rules provide for it, or when there are extenuating circumstances and a consensus to set aside the rules
2).
1 For example, if a rule said "black" in the context of a computer, and a Q&A later clarified black to mean #000000 in 24-bit RGB colour space, then that would be enforceable, because this is a valid definition of "black" that provides a logically valid resolution to the ambiguity. If the Q&A instead ruled that "black" meant #FF0000 (red), the Q&A should be ignored, because it cannot be logically applied to the rules.
2 In case of a major contingency—e.g. robot impaled by forklift, dropped from loading dock, shipped to Timbuktu, etc.—the rules should provide an explicit procedure to authorize the suspension of whatever rules are necessary to provide the desired outcome. Failing that (as the current rules do), precedent indicates that FIRST is comfortable with officials taking the initiative to set aside some rules in an effort to achieve equity. (Sometimes in consultation with FIRST headquarters.)