[Jaxom]

Originally Posted by EricH

If I was to rule it illegal, this is how I would do it: Team A is supplying a part to multiple teams, the same part in fact (this is important). The question is, quite simply: Is it then part of Team A's robot, or the other teams' robots? Looking at the definition of ROBOT from the Manual, I could probably make a pretty strong case either way. If it is ruled part of Team A's robot (and the way I could rule it that way is that it is part of an electromechanical assembly that is designed to play UA, though it is separate from the rest of that assembly), then there are a number of ways to rule it illegal on the field or in inspection, the least of which is a T-foul (G13) and from there they go up to DQ/fix the robot. Of course, it could also be ruled that such a part is a part of all the other teams' robots, just supplied by another team. (It's not a COTS part, so it is thus a FABRICATED ITEM, thus no trouble over team as VENDOR.)

If I was inspecting robot C (the part's already been on B) and knew what was happening (one would hope the teams tell the inspector, but they may not even know what they're doing is even close to fishy) I'd have no problem considering the part a temporary part of robot B, C, D, or whatever. I'd never even consider it part of robot A (unless they put it on as well, but even then I don't think they're any different from the other teams wearing the part), except for the potential withholding allowance issue. I wouldn't worry about who built it; we have teams helping other teams all the time, and that help frequently involves fabrication. I don't recall ever hearing anyone consider that an issue.

Originally Posted by EricH

Of course, this is a bit of a stretch to do, and I don't think that anybody would go that far unless there were significant complaints.

This is the only reason I'd even mention this to my LRI. I'm pretty confident that my interpretation is within the rules (at least, I am until one of the many people bigger than I chimes in and says otherwise ) but I would want the LRI & Head Referee to know in case there are inquiries from other parties.

Originally Posted by EricH

I would assume that the LRIs can, like the Head Refs, call on other sources, including GDC members that happen to be present (and this being the Championship, that would probably be most of them).

As far as I can tell there's no provision in the rules that puts the GDC in the chain of authority for rulings on the legality of this. I'm not saying that they shouldn't or wouldn't carry some potential weight; I know I'd listen if I was a LRI. But as written the rules say that if anyone (which includes a member of the GDC) complains to the LRI about a ruling on "...any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT." (5.5.2) he or she is within proper boundaries to decide the complaint doesn't merit changing that ruling. Whether or not FIRST allowed that person to ever be an LRI again after something like that happens remains to be seen.