Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
(Or, rather, if you dispute the assertion that the second drill is a spare, you might consider actually explaining yourself.)
|
I dispute the assertion that the second drill is a spare. Here is why:
As stated in the original question, the drill motor is a distinct part of the 2 assemblies. It does NOT reside on the general base and "reach up into" the assemblies in any way.
As per the 2004 rules, if a component is a piece of 2 distinct assemblies and NOT part of the robot "base" which these assemblies attach to, it must be present in both assemblies during check in.
Last year's rules were designed to discourage modularity of ANY sort. It makes sense that the rules would be aggresively designed to put teams in the "worst possible" weight scenario.
Think of it this way: "If it hurts you, it is probably the correct interpretation of the modularity rules."
All the arguments I've seen from the Lall side of things are this:
"There are multiple ways to interpret the rules, here is mine."
Yep, there are multiple ways to interpret a rule; correctly and incorrectly.
This is just so clear cut, (like Steve Warren previously said) I am shocked that you guys are unable to see it. Just because one interpretation "makes more sense" to you, doesn't mean it's the right one. FIRST went completely aginst what a lot of tems wanted. They killed modularity. We all got over it, and didn't look for a loophole.
Canadian Lawyers...
Now I understand why Dave has grey hair.
John