View Single Post
  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-01-2014, 12:45
martin417's Avatar
martin417 martin417 is offline
Opinionated old goat
AKA: Martin Wilson
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Buford, GA
Posts: 721
martin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckDickerson View Post
... If Martin's strict interpretation is correct then I do not see how reversible bumpers nor elastic bumper covers are legal per the picture in R21-F.
For the record, this is not my interpretation. What I mean by that is that I don't believe that the GDC intended to to outlaw any material not listed in R21. I am trying to point point out the dangers of answers on the Q&A that do not explain the basis of the ruling. And I am trying to prevent ambiguity and the potential for anyone to misinterpret a ruling.

Nobody wants inspections to be a nightmare, with teams and inspectors disagreeing on the meaning of a rule or a Q&A. Why not make the ruling clear and move on?

If the GDC is trying to model real life, and the frustrations of dealing with poorly defined requirements, then that might be an explanation, but I hope that is not the case.
__________________
Former Mentor Team 1771
Former mentor Team 4509
Reply With Quote