[RyanMcE]

Now I will reply to my own message, because I am just that cool.

(1) Answer:Yes.
Justification: I base my answer on the fact that FIRST told us not to be lawyers this year. To me, that means interpreting things as they would be interpreted by normal people, not nit-pickers. With that in mind,
a. The two robots sure looked entangled to me.
b. The announcer also thought they were entangled.
c. When I show this video to random people walking down the street and ask "are these two robots entangled" most will answered yes.

(2) Answer: Team 469 initiated the entanglement.
Justification: Team 469 put their claw into team 93's basket. The basket did not leap out and grab 469's hook. The actions that led to the entanglement were those of 469, not 93.

(3) Answer: Team 93 was a greater entanglement hazard.
Justification: If I were to drag team 469's claw along random robots, it would not likely become entangled. If I were to drag team 93's net across random robots, it would likely become entangled.

(4a) Answer: Yes, team 469 should have been disabled after getting out of the entanglement.
Justification: My justification has to do with my interpretation of the word "intentional." Look for an upcoming post abut that.

(5a) Answer: No, team 93 should not have been disqualified because of the lack applicable of entanglement hazard rules.
(5b) Answer: 469 was able to end the entanglement, so disabling would have been sufficient, disqualification in this case was not neccesary [this is assuming a previously clean entanglement record. If a past history existed, disqualification may have been in order].