Section 8.3.3 Illegal Gearboxes and Chassis

[falconmaster]

Here is a question no one has asked.....
Is AndyMark able to be in business 6 weeks out of a year?

I am also confused about the definition about the AM shifters 2005, they could be both a COTS and a MECHANISM alone and the Forum had the ruling that it is a COTS MECHANISM. So if we purchased them before the kick-off they are illegal? I would like to hear an official, in plain english say something like- AM Shifters purchased before the kick-off are legal (or not legal) - rather than everyone manipulating the definitions. Please HELP STOP THE LAWYERING and answer the question! Thanks!

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by falconmaster

Here is a question no one has asked.....
Is AndyMark able to be in business 6 weeks out of a year?

I am also confused about the definition about the AM shifters 2005, they could be both a COTS and a MECHANISM alone and the Forum had the ruling that it is a COTS MECHANISM. So if we purchased them before the kick-off they are illegal? I would like to hear an official, in plain english say something like- AM Shifters purchased before the kick-off are legal (or not legal) - rather than everyone manipulating the definitions. Please HELP STOP THE LAWYERING and answer the question! Thanks!

Read the FIRST Q&A.

Originally Posted by dlavery

Read the FIRST Q&A.

I hate to be the one to point this out... And I'm probably going to get neg-repped for this, but I really don't care too much about dots... It would be easier for all of us if a simple "yes" or "no" were typed, and would save time for all parties involved. The time it takes to go to the Q&A, and to find the answer could simply be spared by typing a "yes, they're allowed" or "no, they're not." It also would save the poster some time by them having to type less characters.

I do understand that it was posted a some days ago, but for future reference, if you know the answer, save yourself and us precious time by posting the answer.

[dlavery]

At the time the original question was posted to this thread, a total of 22 questions had been answered on the FIRST Q&A system. The answer had been provided as the sixth question to be answered. I do not think it is unreasonable to let someone know that a clearly-marked answer can be found by referring to a short 22-line list of titles. The only reason that the response did not take a more precise form like "the answer has been posted in section xxx of the FIRST Q&A" is that at the time the Q&A list was so short that a section pointer was unnecessary.

In addition, the requestor had specifically asked for an official answer. Official answers are not available on CD - they are only available from FIRST via the Q&A system. So suggesting they check the FIRST Q&A system for the answer to their question is not only appropriate, it is directly responsive to what they had asked for in the first place.

That said, I will disagree with your sentiment that we are here to just spoon feed answers to every question. With that sort of an approach, the requestors will never learn about the resources that are already available to them, and with which they should be familiar. Detailed technical questions are one area where basic information may be necessary. However, particularly in the case of questions about rules, responses that point to complete, official answers are much more appropriate than having anyone here provide a paraphrased, intermediate recitation that may be incorrect.

Furthermore, doing so avoids all manner of misinterpretation and indeterminate lawyering discussions such as those that have erupted here lately. And avoiding those situations saves all of us ever so much more of the precious time that is apparently so important.

-dave

[ChuckDickerson]

Yes, I know, I am dredging back up this old thread from last year specifically pertaining to last years rules. However, I am wondering if the specific rules discussed in this thread were a warning shot to teams for this year. Are any teams worried about this issue of no COTS/MECHANISMS/WHATEVER purchased prior to kickoff becoming a rule this year or in the future? With season rapidly approaching I am sure many teams are gathering materials and pieces and parts. I just thought a reminder to all would be in order that FRC rules are always subject to change and teams may want to consider what they are buying pre-season so as to avoid spending a bunch of money on stuff they find they can’t legally use come January 5th.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by DeepWater

Are any teams worried about this issue of no COTS/MECHANISMS/WHATEVER purchased prior to kickoff becoming a rule this year or in the future?

I believe the various problems with that rule were made sufficiently clear to the rulesmakers last year. I don't expect it to make an appearance again.