[Matt Adams]

There's one thing that has really irked me about this whole concept.

We don't know what official stance FIRST will take, because nobody from either team took a few minutes to ask some simple questions on the FIRST Q&A at the start of the season.

There's been controversey on rulings in the past, but since this situation involves finances, sponsorship, and some important definitions (NOT game strategy) it's a completely different ball game from what we've seen before.

Team members openly admitted that they knew that there would be critics... so I ask, why wouldn't you have a long list of Q&A's ready to fire back, showing what you did was completely within the rules?

Instead, FIRST is a really tough bind, and these teams need to potentially ask for forgiveness instead of ask for permission.

[edit /irresponsibility]

FIRST doesn't like to make rulings specifically because people ventured into a grey area without asking. This is why the Q&A system was set up, so that prompt answers could be read by all teams to both common and obscure, "grey area" questions.

This is OBVIOUSLY a grey area.

I hope I'm wrong, and a team leader will post a written ruling tomorrow from FIRST (dated 4 weeks ago) giving you the thumbs up to do this. If so, I sincerely have no qualms.

However, if some team leaders have risked the entire season for not one but two teams on this collaboration without asking FIRST the appropriate questions, I give my deepest sympathy to all of the students that may end up with a ruined season. I hope it won't come to that. It looks like a lot of people have worked long and hard, and it would be a shame if FIRST, out of fairness to all teams, had to make a ruling that was unexpected.

However, this situation should be ruled as though this question was asked before the season started. The idea of bending the rules and definitions because something has "already been done" is fundamentally unfair to all other FIRST teams.

Just my two cents,

Matt