[GaryVoshol]

As I posted elsewhere, the GDC really does a pretty good job. Of the literally hundreds of rules and definitions, how many of them are we stressed about? A half dozen?

Just as your robot is never done because it's not perfect, the rules are never perfect. That doesn't mean the GDC shouldn't strive for perfection. Part of moving toward that goal is valid constructive criticism. Things will get overlooked in the design process, whether robot or rules. Things will have to be corrected. Things will have to be pointed out when they are adversely affecting teams, especially late in the season.

Every year we have some sort of rules floo-fla. The most complaints come from flip-flops, when things that were ruled legal a week after kickoff were ruled illegal after ship, or when things that were illegal in W1 events were made legal for W3. This battery thing impresses most people as a flip-flop, because it goes against previous practice - even if the rules are the same as in previous years, they didn't seem to be enforced or mentioned then.

I've worked on rules committees, and there are two extremes of going about it. You can make the rules general, and then have those enforcing the rules make all the interpretations needed. Or you can make the rules very specific and restrictive leaving no room for interpretation.

The first is good if everyone doing the official interpretation - referees, judges, inspectors, etc - are on the same wavelength. But we've seen cases in the past where an interpretation was made, misconstrued by people hearing that interpretation, and there was great debate and consternation. It can lead to inconsistancy. The OCCRA rules committee generally follows this path, but it works because the same group of people write the rules, interpret and answer questions on the rules, and enforce the rules as inspectors and referees.

The restrictive method is often used in government regulations, insurance, other highly-bureaucratic organizations. Rules can't be fixed, even when the results of a rule are unfair.

FRC attempts to take a partial middle path, and sometimes veers too far to one side or the other for some people's tastes. They attempt to allow some interpretation by giving guidance to those who will be making the interpretations - e.g. inspector and referee training, testing and conference calls. But there is also the place for the GDC to make definitive rulings, even if people don't like those rulings.

We don't excuse the GDC because "they're doing the best they can." But at the same time, we should not harshly criticise the GDC, because "they are doing the best they can." I firmly believe that - those committee members I have met, even briefly, certainly have a passion for what they are doing and want to give teams and students the best possible experiences.