@blatwell It indeed does, in a technical sense. @Karthik gave a previous ruling that states
This ruling indirectly implies 2 things: teams have a choice between the “sizing box” and the sizing tool, and the “sizing box” defines up as the vector opposite in direction to the force of gravity.
The first point of these to consider is the choice. The sizing tool, when properly used, measures 18" from the table, no more. However, Karthik’s ruling directly said the cube can in fact stand on its corner without support. If a bot theoretically could do this, the top of the bot would be above 18" from the surface of the inspection table. This is in direct violation of <G4> ii. The only scenario where both Karthik’s ruling remains true and <G4> ii can be violated is that a team has a choice between which sizing method they use. So, a team in this situation would choose <G4> i. If this choice is not allowed, Karthik’s ruling would be violated.
Secondly, the statement that this particular example should be legal. <G4> i states the following:
According to geometric rules that I hope everyone accepts, the terms “walls” and “ceiling” are relative terms. Because a bot, that would be considered legal according to the direct 18" cube, could either not physically touch the bottom of the box because the table is in the way or can touch the bottom of the box legally. In both of these scenarios, we must decide what classifies as a “wall,” the “floor” and the “ceiling.” It is generally excepted that a ceiling is up, walls are out, and floors are down; following this common knowledge we can say the two faces perpendicular to the table in this example are the walls, the two sloped faces that can be viewed by looking down on this box are the ceiling, and the remaining two faces are the floor. Because we deduced that the floor is either touched legally or can be below the robot, permeating through the table, (both of these scenarios give the same outcome) we are brought to one situation where the bot is legal:
Touching the floor of the box is legal: This implies the bot can be supported by the cube. Karthik’s use of the word “else” states that the bot must either be supported by itself or the cube. Karthik never mentioned the table in his ruling, (I just now realized I’m assuming Karthik to be male. Is this true?) forcing the bot to be technically unsupported by the table. Because cubes, and to an extent, boxes, are closed 3D objects, have edges, we can say there is some discernible gap between the table and the very bottom of the bot due to the thickness of the faces. (in this scenario the robot is the maximum 18" by 18" by 18" size. I’ll explain what happens if its smaller shortly ) So, the robot must be supported by the box per Karthik’s ruling, assuming toughing the floor is legal. Of course, the box/cube must be supported too. This means if a bot is completely above the table, and the cube must be as well, it would fall over, rendering this application useless. Although, this “sizing box” is still in quotations, implying that the box itself can be practically anything. If we do not assume that this material can pass through the inspection table, we can see that a robot which is not (18 x sqrt(2))" tall but is more than 18" wide can be legal. The cube would be supporting the robot; the table supporting the cube due to the properties of the material. This would place the robot a very small distance off of the inspection table. This, in turn, would satisfy all the rulings needed and render the bot in the original post legal.
Or if you want to think of it like the cube is permeating through the table and the bot is resting on the table, that may be easier. (although not technically legal per Karthik’s ruling)
I know I got far more technical than needed, but I feel it important to point out the error in thought here. (mainly that a bot MUST fit under the sizing tool) [Also, I was bored and this was an amazing use of my time] And hey, there’s only one way to find out for sure if this is legal: wait for Karthik to reply to the original post. I hope he logically thinks out this problem and deduces what I have. Besides, a robot in this setup would be at a slight size disadvantage; some of the cube would be cut off. There would at least be a trade off in taking this route. Also, if flipped on its side, this bot could be measured with the sizing tool; one would find it to be in specs at that orientation. Then, using this logic, the bot could start the match with the wheels on the foam tiles.
