Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Multiple people here have pointed you to R21 as the likely basis for the ruling. the GDC doesn't need to qualify or explain every single answer. They include additional explanation when they feel the question requires it. In this case, they didn't feel the question required additional explanation. Their answer is in accordance with the rules as they are written. If you're getting so worked up about this, why aren't you also getting worked up about all of the responses disallowing specific items from use with the pneumatic system? It's the same thing... the GDC listed exactly how you need to set up your system and what you're allowed to use (just like they did with the bumpers in R21), and teams ask if they can use something that's not on the list.

Yes multiple people have pointed out R21. That is exactly my point. If R21 is the basis for the ruling, then anything not listed in R21 (like staples) are illegal, and any method of attaching the bumpers to the robot other than a tee-nut and bolt are also illegal. I do not believe that this is the intent of the GDC, but it is the result of their answer if you take R21 as the basis.

I am not "getting worked up", I am simply pointing out that when the GDC interprets a rule, that interpretation has broader implications, and has to be applied to all aspects of that rule. If R21 makes tape illegal because tape is not listed, it makes staples illegal because staples are not listed.

Al Skierkiewicz posited that perhaps the basis is that noodles may not be attached to the plywood by any means, but I can't find that rule anywhere, so it would be a new rule not an interpretation.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by martin417

and any method of attaching the bumpers to the robot other than a tee-nut and bolt are also illegal.

Not sure how you can interpret that from anywhere in the rule. Figure 8-4 posts "example fastener system ...", and the verbiage of 21F is pretty clear about not being specifically defined:

21

F. must attach to the FRAME PERIMETER of the ROBOT with a rigid fastening system to form a tight, robust connection to the main structure/frame (e.g. not attached with hook-and-loop or tie-wraps). The attachment system must be designed to withstand vigorous game play. All removable fasteners (e.g. bolts, locking pins, pip-pins, etc.) will be considered part of the BUMPERS.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Not sure how you can interpret that from anywhere in the rule. Figure 8-4 posts "example fastener system ...", and the verbiage of 21F is pretty clear about not being specifically defined:

I agree that the rules don't say this, but my point, which everyone seems to be missing, is that if we accept R21 as the basis for the GDC ruling that tape is not legal, then the only way that can be the basis is by saying that anything not explicitly listed in R21 is forbidden. There can be no other justification for R21 as the basis.

[Lil' Lavery]

Much ado about nothing.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Much ado about nothing.

OK, lets play "what if".

What if your team interprets the ruling the way it was probably meant, no other implications other than no tape. You build your bumper the way you always have and staple the fabric to the plywood backing. You attach the bumpers to the frame using De-sta-co clamps and arrive at your regional ready to go.

The LRI, on the other hand, has read the Q&A carefully, and interpreted the ruling to mean that nothing is allowed that is not listed in R21. He says your bumpers are not legal, and you have to remove the staples and come up with a different way to mount your bumpers. You spend all day Thursday bringing your robot into compliance. You miss all practices on Thursday, and two matches on Friday morning because you weren't inspected.

Wouldn't you wish then that there had been no ambiguity? Wouldn't it be simpler and make all regionals and inspections go more smoothly by making things crystal clear now? What is the advantage to waiting until Inspections to find out if your interpretation is correct? (or more importantly, in line with the interpretation of the LRI).

[Qbot2640]

Originally Posted by martin417

Yes multiple people have pointed out R21. That is exactly my point. If R21 is the basis for the ruling, then anything not listed in R21 (like staples) are illegal, and any method of attaching the bumpers to the robot other than a tee-nut and bolt are also illegal. I do not believe that this is the intent of the GDC, but it is the result of their answer if you take R21 as the basis.

I feel like a bunch of you are ganging up on Martin here - but he is absolutely right. I too have worked in a specifications-driven industry and, regardless of the "perceived significance" of an official interpretation, these kinds of discrepancies can have far reaching implications on other rules.

If the illegality of tape is due to a possibility that teams may build up enough tape to add structural strength under the bumpers that is one thing...if it is to prevent a team from adhering the noodles to the wood before wrapping (though I can't understand why that would be disallowed) it is another. With no basis given for the rule, an entirely new set of questions are now valid and in play...most notably: "Are staples legal?". There are no staples shown or referenced in R21 or Figure 4-8.

[wilsonmw04]

I think we are in the weeds here. IF we really wanted to get wacky, the tubes in the rule book are all blue. That means we can only use blue tubes...

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Martin,
Point taken.