I hate this particular situation, because it exposes an area where the rules are very, very ambiguous. (I won't touch rulemakers' intent for now....)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rules, Section 4
A TETRA is STACKED when it is placed on top of a GOAL or on top of another STACKED TETRA.
|
Exclusive or, or inclusive or? If exclusive, then you can't be supported on more than one object; if inclusive, you can, as in the top red tetra illustrated.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rules, Section 4
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.
|
Is this the definition of "properly seated", or is this a necessary but
insufficent part of the stacking condition? Furthermore, does "structure" refer to a single object, or collection of objects. I'd tend to say that it refers to the collection, but since a tetra or goal is itself a structure, it is ambiguous.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rules, Section 4
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.
|
Again, is this a definition, or a part of a definition, or just descriptive language? It is apparent that the tetras shown are not "precariously positioned" (which would seem to require a substantial risk of collapse, over and above a regular stack), but yet, depending on the interpretation of "properly seated", such tetras may or may not be considered stacked.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rules, Section 4
A TETRA is not considered STACKED if it is touching a ROBOT of the same alliance.
|
I'm not too concerned about this part, now that the "when is the tetra part of a robot" question has been cleared up. (As in, a robot-held tetra touches the stack; per <QA1852>, it's not part of the robot at the end of the match, since the HP loading sequence has ended.)
Remember: lawyering and engineering are the same, in that in both, you've got to understand the definitions of the issues which you confront. Precise rules make both groups happy.