From Chapter 7 of the manual:
Quote:
|
ROBOT: anything that has passed ROBOT inspection that a TEAM places on the field prior to the start of a match.
|
I don't see anything in the manual the provides for a separate definition of a Ramp or Robot that would indicate that a Ramp is NOT part of a Robot. Therefore, if Rule <G56> discusses Robots that are supported by Game Pieces, and per the definition a Ramp is equivalent to a Robot, and the Q&A makes it clear that a Robot supported by a Robot supported by a Game Piece cannot receive bonus points, then....
There really is only one way that the rules can be applied in this case. And if you think it through, you will see why it has to be that way. Some people will not like the correct interpretation (actually, since the current voting is virtually 50-50, about half of them won't like it

). Lucien has done a great job of using an extreme case to motivate the discussion. But careful consideration of the moderate cases will reveal why the rule, the application of the rule, and the outcome of the example match, have to be the way they are.
Lucien, this was an absolutely brilliant YMTC to post. I must admit, I am finding this whole discussion quite interesting. For the past two and a half months (actually, for the past several competition seasons) we have seen a significant percentage of the community all up in arms about referees that don't enforce the rules exactly as written, about how strict interpretations must be the only interpretations of the rules, hair-splitting over definitions of individual words used in the rules and their meanings, and overt "lawyering." Entire teams are saying they are going to go do VEX. Senior mentors are threatening to quit. Chicken Little is screaming about this being the beginning of the end for FIRST.
And yet, when a very plausible situation is discussed, many of those very same people are the very first ones to start saying "well, the rules really don't mean that. And even if they do, let's redefine them on the fly so that they mean something different. After all, they shouldn't be enforced that way..." The honor of a team that might benefit from strict adherence to the rules is now being questioned. Phrased like "I would be embarrassed," "shameful," and " forfeit a hollow victory" are being thrown around. A reprise of Marlon Brando's 1973 refusal to accept an Oscar is being touted as the only appropriate action.
The inconsistency in the positions being taken is fascinating to observe.
-dave