[YMTC]: Do DISCS a robot is touching invalidate a CLIMB?

[Grim Tuesday]

Based on 2016's Q&A, which notably hasn't been answered yet. I was expecting it to be in tonight's team update but haven't seen anything relating to it:

Q621 Q. If a robot is supported from the lowest rung of the pyramid, but its lowest point is in contact with a disc on the floor, not in possession of the robot, such that if the disc was removed, no part of the robot would be in contact with the floor. Does contact with the disc invalidate the climb?

We've seen often over the season that a robot touching or being supported by a disc has their CLIMB ruled invalid.

It makes sense for this to be the case but I can't seem to find where this is actually defined in the manual:

3.1.5.2 defines the CLIMB process. Here is the full text of the rule in question:

A ROBOT has CLIMBED its PYRAMID if it contacts the PYRAMID and/or the floor (Level 0) in sequential order (Level 0, 1, 2, 3) during ascent and no more than two (2) Levels simultaneously.


If a CLIMB is considered unacceptable (e.g. a ROBOT has touched non-adjacent Levels or more than two (2) Levels at a time), a Referee will indicate a rejected CLIMB by turning the offending ROBOT’S PLAYER STATION LED strings yellow. The ROBOT will be ineligible for CLIMB points unless and until it begins a new CLIMB from the floor, Level 0.

A robot being supported (fully or partially) by a DISC has touched the levels in sequential order, and has not touched more than two simultaneously. In addition, assuming their CLIMB is otherwise valid, by virtue of being supported by the DISC and not the floor, they are not touching level 0. Thus, the entirety of their ROBOT is in LEVEL 1 and it is a valid CLIMB.

Q623 Q. Do DISCS under the active control of a ROBOT count towards the limits defined by the PLAYING CONFIGURATION? STARTING CONFIGURATION?

Q623 proves that DISCS under a robot's control are not part of the PLAYING configuration so why should they count towards whether or not the ROBOT is in LEVEL 1? In addition, most of the time this happens, the discs in question are not under the active control of the ROBOT and I don't think anyone could make a valid argument that discs not under active control should be considered part of the ROBOT.

Finally, we have G16:

G16
TEAMS and/or ROBOTS may not employ strategies that use DISCS to either aid or inhibit a ROBOT CLIMB.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL. If the DISC(S) inhibits an opponent’s CLIMB attempt, the opponent ROBOT’S ALLIANCE will be granted credit for a Level 3 CLIMB at the end of the MATCH.

In the case I am talking about, the team certainly is not "employing strategies" that use DISCS to aid their CLIMB. The DISC is simply there, it is not part of their strategy. Secondly, if referees were to call this penalty on teams supported by DISCS, then it would be a technical foul for something completely incidental and not caused directly by a team, which I highly doubt is the intended result.

One remaining question is whether Ultimate Ascent follows the transitive property, which is I suppose the root question. Does a disc touching the floor mean the robot is touching the floor? Does a disc touching a robot touching another robot mean robot-to-robot contact? Nowhere is this defined and here is where we must make the call. If indeed the transitive property does apply to Ultimate Ascent, how far should we take it? Does it apply to cases like 3 robots (ie red robot 1 touching PYRAMID, red robot 2 touching 1, blue robot touches red robot 2?) Transitive climb interference? Or does it apply only to discs? Based on the current rules, I don't think it applies to anything.

I am left to conclude that robot's that are supported by or touching DISCS are in fact making valid CLIMBS. Did I miss something?