I think that what may be a problem for the GDC, in this case, is that it is pretty difficult to create a clear-cut definition of a "robot" without being incredibly intricate or complicated. As we have seen many machines in competition, each robot holds its own unique, qualitative characteristics. Even though the GDC has not yet established a comprehensive definition of a "robot," it appears to me that currently, a robot must consist of any and all required components specified in the rulebook. As was stated before, a cardboard box with a robot controller, a flag holder, and a few other items could be considered a robot. In practice, however, "common sense" would dictate that such a thing really isn't a robot. Such a thing, however, is legal, although I severely doubt it would pass inspection in such a state.
I'm afraid that at the current moment, the situation is pretty much ambiguous as to its "legality." Sure, the rules
say that such a configuration is legal, in that it meets all specified criteria for the definition of a robot. My opinion is that, even though 1519 found what the GDC considers a "loophole," it appears that it was in 1519's interest to try and flex their creativity while still adhering to the above rules and criteria. I severely doubt that 1519 had any malicious intentions to try and deceive the GDC with their design. I believe that 1519 tried too hard to try and make their creation(s) legal and unproblematic for the inspectors to have part of their design dismissed outright.
Perhaps in the future, the GDC will be able to predict this sort of incident and prevent such a controversial topic from repeating itself. As it stands, I see that 1519's machines/mechanisms can certainly qualify as a single robot if the literal interpretation of this rule is taken. If they are able to fix their bumper issue, I believe that they should be able to compete with both machines.
I can understand the GDC's stance on this overall issue, for it is a difficult one to judge, especially given the circumstances of the situation. I also believe that it would have been very beneficial (and prevented a load of controversy) if 1519 had asked about this in the Q&A earlier in the season, especially if there was any sense of ambiguity as to the legitimacy of their design. It's kind of understandable too that they hadn't asked until they were completely finished, and I can vouch that sometimes my mind is always wandering in a place much different from the rulebooks.
If I remember correctly, I thought that FIRST gave the benefit of the doubt to the teams regarding an issue such as this. Given my observations of this discussion and 1519's behavior, it seems to me that their team meant, in no way, to deceive the GDC and compromise the integrity of this year's game. I do find it quite interesting that 1519 is capable of creating excellent machines which are well suited for this year's game. If it counts for anything, I can at least say that 1519 is the only team to experience both sides of the spectrum: Building a Racer and a Hurdler in one season is certainly an admirable accomplishment!