[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by GDC

Rule <R09> expressly states that teams may only enter ONE (1) Robot into the competition.

I have to assume that this is stated merely as a clarification. Using this as an argument for one position or another would be circular reasoning, because the whole point of the question was to better define what a robot actually is.

Originally Posted by GDC

Rule <R12> describes the basic structure of the robot plus additional mechanisms that are required at inspection. Two robots that share a control system and power supply do not fit this "basic" plus "additional" components since both robots are basic robot structures.

The "basic ROBOT structure" is not defined in the rules. Judging by 1519's brief, they consider that structure to be their electronics board, as it is common to both configurations.

It would be perfectly reasonably to call their structure (i.e. the electronics board) basic, because it forms part of the robot which is used in every configuration. The word structure does not solely imply the set of components bearing the principal chassis loads. Even if it did imply that, how would this be reliably and repeatably testable by an inspector, given the multitude of robot designs out there? If it's not testable, it comes down to the official's best guess, and that's a situation that should be avoided, to maximize the consistency of officiation.

Originally Posted by GDC

Rule <R114> claims THE (implication, ONE) Robot must be presented with all Mechanisms and that Mechanisms may be removed or reconfigured between matches. A Mechanism is defined as a COTS or custom assembly of components that provde specific functionality ON THE ROBOT.

Again, the point of the original question was to ask whether the set of components constituted a robot, or if there were indeed two. It's circular to use this as justification, because the team is contending that there is only one robot. For 1519 to have violated <R114>'s implication, one would have had to presuppose that there were two robots present. Apart from the business about presupposing one robot or two, it's clear that the team took great pains to comply with this rule.

Also, this is why lawyers draft contracts stating that "instances of the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural, and vice versa". It's not there to obsfuscate, though that may be an occasional side effect.

Originally Posted by GDC

The described robots are also in violation of the bumper construction rules. Rule <R08> permits one set of bumpers, weighing no more than 15 pounds, and extending no more than 3-1/2 inches from the 28 x 38 x 60 volume limits of the robot. There are two robot chassis and drive systems, with two sets of bumpers. But there is no way that the full set of bumpers (both sets) can be mounted on the (one - either one) robot and satisfy Rule <R08>.

<R08> does not specify "one set of bumpers" or anything to that effect. It is a list of requirements for whatever bumpers a team chooses to use. It is never stated that all bumpers must be used in a given configuration.

Answers like this one are the reason why it's important to establish and state clearly an order of precedence among official FIRST communications. When there's a discrepancy, nobody knows what to trust.

Also, I wonder how much of the GDC's decision was based upon the idea of maintaining consistency between events. That's a major goal among inspectors, and FIRST in general. Could it be that they were rationalizing a call that they didn't agree with, in order to prevent varying interpretations of the rule from being enforced?

Alternatively, was the GDC just trying to read their original intent into the rules, rather than thorougly considering the position they were in effect advancing? If the intent behind the definition of a robot was so important, couldn't it have been stated unambiguously in the first place?