As you know, a GDC ruling trumps everything else. I suppose it can be reconciled by reminding your inspectors that “failing” that specific provision does not preclude them from being able to play, only meriting extra scrutiny per <SG14>
From a referee’s perspective, it would make more sense to fit the sizing at inspection or not pass then to try and catch if they actually exceed the length while the robot is in action.
Apple – the written documentation (inspection checklist) can be made to match the Q&A which will make everyone’s lives easier. When I run an event, I try to recruit VRC mentors to do the inspection (“don’t inspect your own team(s)”), who have a much great probability of knowing the Q&A, but random adult volunteers are not going to be that knowledgeable. Let’s help them do a good job.
Jokai – either way is fine with me, as long as the checklist and Q&A are not (apparently) contradictory.
The checklist needs to change to match the rules rather than the rules change to match the checklist.
I have one team that has two mogo intakes. If they are both extended out at the same time to their fullest length, the robot would be longer than 36" if measured at a diagonal. Of course there is absolutely no reason for the two arms to ever be extended at the same time so complying with the actual rules is really no problem. The problem is that the inspection checklist does not take this sort of thing into account.