Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeTwo
Have you looked at figure 4-6 or read Q814?
I did not say that the rules prohibit the bumpers from being structural. I said that the cross-brace was legal but that I thought it would be likely to cause a rule change. The only way to make the call on whether a rules change would result is to read intent into the rules.
Despite the last paragraph of 1.4 of the game rules, I find that when we try to understand the intent of the rules, we are less likely to run afoul of them. When we read them too literally, we are more likely to be disappointed. Edit: If someone hadn't tried to read intent into the rules, cheese caking would be illegal.
|
By your interpretation of the intent of the rules all over the bumper intakes in 2012 and this year would be breaking the intent of the bumper rules because they are increasing the functionality of the robot.
Also, by increasing the structural integrity of the bumpers am I not also increasing the protection that they provide to my robot? Therefor the additions still fall into your definition of the intent of bumpers "the bumpers protect the robot (and other robots, field elements, etc)"