I have conflicting opinions here. Q&A #1789:
Quote:
Q: If the HP is placing a 2nd tetra onto the robot would they get penalized if part of their body touched the tetra that is already on the robot?
A: Yes, the tetra is now considered an extension of the robot.
|
Versus the games definitions:
Quote:
ROBOT – Anything (which has passed inspection) that a team places on the field prior to the start of a match.
STACKED – A TETRA is STACKED when it is placed on top of a GOAL or on top of another STACKED TETRA. To be considered STACKED, the TETRA must be properly seated on the subordinate GOAL or TETRA such that all four apex connectors are within six inches of the SUPPORTING structure. Due to the GOAL and TETRA geometries, a TETRA may occasionally not completely “seat” on the GOAL or subordinate TETRA, and remain precariously positioned on top of the structure. Such TETRAS are not considered STACKED. A TETRA is not considered STACKED if it is touching a ROBOT of the same alliance.
|
These are obviously clearly in opposition to each other. There are three possible solutions:
1. The Q&A is wrong, teams shouldn't be penalized.
2. The definitions are wrong, and a tetra held by a robot touching another tetra descores that tetra.
3. Both are right. The Q&A definition is strictly for the case of human loading, while the game definition is for all other cases.
I have no idea which of these three is being used, however. 2 seems cumbersome, though, as it requires that Q&As supplant the rulebook, which means that refs need to memorize all the Q&As in addition to all the rules.
EDIT: The rulebook and the Q&As are often at odds it seems. Reading the rulebook, a team could remove a lot of points thus: Blue has 2 tetras stacked at the bottom of a goal, and Red has 5 tetras on top of these 2. Blue touches the higher of its two tetras, unstacking it. The red tetras no longer count since they aren't supported by a stacked tetra. The Q&A changes the definitions to say that this only discounts the same color tetras above the touched one.