Were at a competition yesterday and there was a question about a low lift. The lifting robot put out a ramp the other robot drove up it. the ramp was supported by the field tiles kinda like a platform. Is this a legitimate low lift?
Yes, that should have been counted as a low elevation (assuming the other requirements were met; see below) because only the lifting robot was supported by the field; the lifting robot will always end up being directly supported by the field, whereas the robot that is lifted should be supported entirely by the lifting robot, and nothing else.
Here’s the official definition of a low elevation, for reference:
When you say field tiles, are you referring to the grey and colored foam tiles on the floor?
yes the grey blue and red tiles
Well obviously the entirety of both robots are supported by the foam tiles, but that certainly doesn’t invalidate all high lifts! I think you are confusing the rule. It is illegal to lift a robot with a mechanism supported by the field perimeter, not by the floor tiles. Hope this helps. 
I’m assuming you meant that the lifting robot can be supported by the tiles, but not the lifted robot, right? Obviously if the lifted robot is touched the floor tiles than it won’t be an elevation of any kind 
I assume @Infinity Minus 1 meant that if the lifted robot is supported entirely by the lifting robot, and the lifting robot is supported entirely by the foam tiles, then the entire weight of both robots is supported (albeit indirectly) by the foam field tiles. However, this technicality wouldn’t negate a high elevation because the definition of high elevation doesn’t directly say anything about what is supporting the weight of the elevated robot, just that the elevated robot must be touching its partner, above the field perimeter, and not touching any field elements (which includes the tiles).
The definition of low elevation does mention what supports the weight of the elevated robot, but only to stipulate that the field perimiter can’t support an elevated robot. Otherwise it’s similar to the definition of high elevation.
So while both robots are technically supported by the foam field tiles during any plausible elevation scenario I can think of, this would not directly be grounds to negate an elevation, provided the elevated robot is not itself touching the field tiles.
OK, maybe “directly supported” (vs. “indirectly supported”) is a better term here.
Also, there’s a clarification in the definition of Low Elevation that the lifted robot can touch the field perimeter so long as it’s not supported by the field perimeter (where “supported” means that the lifted robot is no longer 4 inches above the field after moving the lifting robot (and thus the lifted robot too) away from the field perimeter).