pic: Robot Bumpers

[Manoel]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

(...)

My concern is that the competition manual does not adequately explain why Mr. Hill's image is illegal. If it does explain it, it is not clear enough for a high school audience. It's as if "lawyering" must be used to understand why it is non-compliant.

I get a unique perspective working with other FIRST teams in the Boston schools. For many of these students English is not their first language. Many of the teams do not have a strong foundation. They are not your "typical suburban" FIRST teams where FIRST powerhouses reside. These type of teams will have difficulty with confusing rules.
(...)

Well, none of us down here have English as our first language, neither are we a powerhouse team and we never had a problem understanding the bumper rule - in my opinion, it's never been a matter of understanding it, more like "we don't like it the way it is so we'll pretend to be crazy and circumvent it".

Lots of people are confusing "lawyering" with "basic logical reasoning". FIRST can't possibly write down every outcome of a rule clause. If proposition A and B clearly lead to conclusion C - and let's be honest, the relation is quite clear to anyone trying just a little bit hard to understand the rule -, then there's no need to make it explicit-rub-in-your-nose-spell-like-you-really-mean-it-72-pt-bright-pink-font.

Nobody wants a 700-page manual that's absolutely juridically perfect and leaves even the world's greediest lawyer without chance of arguing, right?

Sorry if I came out harsh, but this bumper thing has taken way too much of everyone's time for nothing. I don't hate many things, but time-wasting and false dilemmas are amongst the few.