Modifying robot at competition?

[DanCreed3692]

T08

At the time of Inspection, the ROBOT must be presented with all MECHANISMS (including all COMPONENTS of each MECHANISM), configurations, and decorations that will be used on the ROBOT during the entire competition event. It is acceptable, however, for a ROBOT to play MATCHES with a subset of the MECHANISMS that were present during Inspection. Only MECHANISMS that were present during the Inspection may be added, removed or reconfigured between MATCHES. If MECHANISMS are changed between MATCHES, the reconfigured ROBOT must still meet all Inspection criteria.


I want to see what peoples take on this rule is. To me I read this as that each robot has to be presented at initial inspection with all components of each mechanism for any configurations that are planned to be used during the "ENTIRE COMPETITION EVENT".... E.G. if you came to the competition with a robot designed to be an awesome shooter, but then suddenly see another team has this awesome device, or some other component that allows it to do something completely different. I talking adds a totally new function to your robot and you thus start playing the game in a tottaly different way because of this new mechanism it should NOT be allowed. In fact it even goes on to specifically state that ONLY Mechanisms that were present during during the inspection may be added/removed/reconfigured between matches..

We got the #1 seed, and went to finals with an AWESOME long range shooter and had two teams them subsuqently out of the blue build completely jury rigged 84" masts with plastic and netting specifically added to block our alliance partners shots. These masts WERE NOT used during any other matches, were NOT presented during initial inspection, and didn't exist until other teams saw the threat our long range shooting alliance partner brought to the table.
(much more importantly they did not exist in any way shape or form before initial inspection).
What are your thoughts. Personally I think the rule is pretty black in white, as it does specifically state that the mechanisms used for the entire competition event must be presented at inspection (implies initial one), and then further clarifies that ONLY mechanisms preesented during inspection may be added/removed/reconfigured... thus further indicating the intention to not allow teams to fabricate new mechansisms out of the blue to add whole new funcationality just to defeat other teams with a different design that is difficult to defend with the robot you brought to the arena...

[jee7s]

Yes, you're right, everything does need to be inspected. But, that doesn't mean mods can't be made at the event. They just all have to be inspected before you go on the field.

FRC 2789 did this at least 4 times this season, notably during elims at Lubbock. With the help of the Bomb Squad, we taped on a bunch of pool noodle and fiberglass rod between matches. The inspector was there, watched us do it, and signed off on it.

So, it's not that you can't make changes, it's that all changes must be inspected. The manual never says that there's only one inspection. You can get an inspector at any time. But, everything on your robot needs to have been inspected before you go on the field for a given match.

[Gregor]

"Inspection time" is not specified. You can get inspected and re-inspected at any time you want.

[markmcgary]

So, we just ignore the "during the entire competition event." part.

[LeelandS]

So, we just ignore the "during the entire competition event." part.

The "snag" so to speak, as Gregor pointed out, is that the time of inspection is not specified. It does not express the difference between the "initial inspection", the "inspection prior to elimination rounds" or any inspection before or after it. Once a robot has been inspected (and subsequently re-inspected), parts that were present during inspection become fair game.

"If MECHANISMS are changed between MATCHES, the reconfigured ROBOT must still meet all Inspection criteria."

[connor.worley]

If T08 makes such modifications illegal in a general case, what is the purpose of T10?

If a ROBOT is modified after it has passed Inspection, other than modifications described in T8, that ROBOT must be re-Inspected.

[EricH]

You've already had your attention called to T10, but I can pull up a few more rules.

T11 specifically states where Fabricated Items must be built at competition (pits or machine shop). This implies that you can build fabricated items, which would presumably include blockers. You can certainly bring in said fabricated items with your withholding, so there is nothing preventing someone from building one between bag day and the event and bringing it. You might also note that maybe they were inspected with the blockers at their very first inspection and opted to compete without them through the whole event until they met you guys in the elims. Remote possibility, but it could happen, and even with your interpretation of T08 it's legal.

Incidentally, there used to be a rule (which seems to have gone MIA in the last few years--might be a good idea to return it, if anyone official is reading this) that specifically stated building at events was allowed. R18's absence of prohibition on building things at competition, and the exclusion of raw material from any list of things you cannot bring to competition, certainly imply that building new devices is allowed without that rule in place.

If there are any further questions on this, or on whether a robot that has added an entirely new mechanism is legal, please follow T10's blue box and have a friendly chat with your friendly event LRI. They will be more than happy to address any concerns that you have, even if the response is "The item you are concerned about is permitted under Rule ____.".

[MrJohnston]

I do think the rules are a bit confusing on this, but recognize that modifications during competition are part of the game.... We also have a long-range shooter and during qualifications, single-handedly put up over 100 points. Of course, Saturday morning came around and everybody and his brother were building blocking devices.

Frankly, not allowing them to do so would have taken the fun out of it all - otherwise we would have sat at the feeding station all competition, firing away. Instead, other teams found themselves in an inferiior situation and worked feverishly to remedy it. (Talk about a learning experience!) Moreover, we had anticipated this and had a drive train strong enough to push them back, etc. In our last match (yes, we were eliminated), we put up 40ish points on our own against a determined defender. It was quite sporting.

Of course, we have come up with some new ideas since losing and look forward to displaying them at Seattle this weekend!

[kylelanman]

I believe in this instance (Team 269) the argument is irrelevant due to incorrect assumptions that are being made.

The following is all based on what I was told from other team members.

The device existed during initial inspection. My understanding was that the same device was also used at another regional in prior weeks.

[2789_B_Garcia]

...indicating the intention to not allow teams to fabricate new mechansisms out of the blue to add whole new funcationality just to defeat other teams with a different design that is difficult to defend with the robot you brought to the arena...

Sometimes rookie teams show up with a box full of parts and no bumpers to regionals...if rules were intended to keep them from adding functionality, they wouldn't be able to compete if they showed up in that scenario.

As JEE7S pointed out, we've done this at two regionals now, making it to finals in week one and winning in week two. We got help from some of the most established and well-respected teams in our part of the country to mod our defensive robot, and our kids and mentors both learned so much in such a short period of time from these interactions. If rules were intended to prevent these interactions from happening, wouldn't those rules violate several of the FIRST core values?

[Jefferson]

FRC 2789 did this at least 4 times this season, notably during elims at Lubbock. With the help of the Bomb Squad, we taped on a bunch of pool noodle and fiberglass rod between matches.

And let me add ya'll were very cool with it. I'm not sure all teams would be happy about taping pool noodles and fiberglass rods to their robot, but y'all were willing to do whatever it took.

Y'all were great to work with and did and excellent job blocking 2468s full court shot. It got us into the finals where we ran up against 1986... not much we could do about them. :)

[markmcgary]

In my humble opinion, some of these rules appear to conflict with one another. However, I believe that it is in the spirit of FIRST to allow adaptation in response to circumstances. So, modify away. I just wish it was as easy to add a decent disk collector as it is to add a pool noodle blocker.

[J-Blondie]

I think that it was just good strategy that came into play there. They saw the opportunity and snagged it to pretty much shutdown one of the power teams on the alliance. I've seen teams do that plenty through the years. I know your alliances defender robot was trying their best to defend you guys from them, but in the end, it just didn't play out.

[MooreteP]

This is one of the cooler aspects of FIRST.

Watching teams engaged in design iteration during the limited window of Thursday practice, then in between Friday and Saturday matches, is like Jazz.

Especially the blockers that magically appear after lunch on Saturday.

[2789_B_Garcia]

Y'all were great to work with and did and excellent job blocking 2468s full court shot. It got us into the finals where we ran up against 1986... not much we could do about them. :)

Thanks, Jefferson! ...and just so you know, 2789 is working on version 4 of a blocker, and we will hopefully be unveiling it this week at Alamo...this mod is specifically based on something we noticed about 1986 at Lubbock, so if we run into them at champs, we will hopefully give them a pretty good headache ;)

[2789_B_Garcia]

Watching teams engaged in design iteration during the limited window of Thursday practice, then in between Friday and Saturday matches, is like Jazz.

You're absolutely right...and working with Mr. Novak and the Bomb Squad to do this is like sharing a duet with John Coltrane or Miles Davis! They are truly inspiring to work with!

[IKE]

T08

snip....
I want to see what peoples take on this rule is. To me I read this as that each robot has to be presented at initial inspection with all components of each mechanism for any configurations that are planned to be used during the "ENTIRE COMPETITION EVENT".... snip...

Dan,
I cut out a lot of your statement and bolded a couple of areas of concern. You have interjected your opinion and added an assumed "initial" to the actual rules. This happens a lot in life and in FRC competitions. Small assumptions like this can cause a lot of upset feelings.

At the events where I am LRI, I let teams know that they need to be re-inspected before they can compete. The 3 areas I look for are starting inside the frame perimeter, weight, and then overall height. Once I know the height, and that they are legal, they are free to compete, and then I can relay the height to the referees so that they know that the bot is 59.5" instead of 60.5".
We had a lot of such modifications occur at 1 event with a few full field shooter, and then vitrually no additions at a venue that had only 1 full field shooter.
We also had experienced teams making tweaks to their rookie partners to improve infeed of frisbees from the players station, more robust battery hold-downs, and clean-ups of loose wiring.

[Brandon Zalinsky]

I definitely think you should be allowed to add a frisbee blocker. I think it's kinda just sour grapes from teams with full-court shooters to say you can't. The same kind of tacked-on defense could be played against a ground-fed robot- a cardboard snowplow could could hoard all the discs in one end.

[SharonO]

Thanks, Jefferson! ...and just so you know, 2789 is working on version 4 of a blocker, and we will hopefully be unveiling it this week at Alamo...this mod is specifically based on something we noticed about 1986 at Lubbock, so if we run into them at champs, we will hopefully give them a pretty good headache ;)

I am willing to bet there are a few teams competing in Oklahoma this weekend that would love to know your planned strategy for shutting down 1986. I know we would have used that knowledge in KC a few weeks ago to turn the outcome of just one semi-final game. :)

[Siri]

I definitely think you should be allowed to add a frisbee blocker. I think it's kinda just sour grapes from teams with full-court shooters to say you can't. The same kind of tacked-on defense could be played against a ground-fed robot- a cardboard snowplow could could hoard all the discs in one end.Realize that this could pull at lot of G24 fouls, though. Hoarding to one end is by definition "herding" rather than "bulldozing".


As to the OP, this is not a case in which interpretations are valid. The question isn't open to interpretation: your contention that T10, T11 and robot-rule compliant additional are illegal is simply false.

[FrankJ]

There is a discussion in the Peachtree thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109419&page=5) from about 70 on about this very thing. One of the robots got modified during a finals timeout. Upshot of this is a re inspection can be as simple as grabbing an inspector an showing him what you are doing. It is up to the inspector to decide the level of reinspection required.

Anything that is part of the robot at the beginning of the competition is supposed to be inspected. The advantage of presenting mechanisms not installed but may be at the initial inspection is you can take them on & of at will without having the robot reinspected. If the robot changes appearance substantially, you might want to let the Referees know that the mechanisms were inspected though.

If you recall the minibots in logomotion went from all sorts to 1-2 designs in less that a week. Of course they were not required to be bagged.

[SteveE]

The 3 areas I look for are starting inside the frame perimeter, weight, and then overall height. Once I know the height, and that they are legal, they are free to compete, and then I can relay the height to the referees so that they know that the bot is 59.5" instead of 60.5".

The height limit is actually 84 inches, even at the beginning. You just can't go out of your auto zone if it is above 60.

[trilogy2826]

The height limit is actually 84 inches, even at the beginning. You just can't cross center field if it is above 60.

Correction: You cannot leave your Auto Zone if the robot is over 60" tall

[Richard Wallace]

IKE did a great job covering this topic from the LRI's point of view in an earlier post.

One additional consideration that should not be missed is:

"R05 The ROBOT weight may not exceed 120 lbs. When determining weight, the basic ROBOT structure and all elements of all additional MECHANISMS that might be used in different configurations of the ROBOT shall be weighed together." (emphasis mine)

Reading the above together with the provision of T08 (quoted by the OP) "during the entire competition event," I interpret the combination of rules to mean that ALL mechanisms included on the robot at any time during the event should be weighed together when the robot is presented for inspection, and that this should be required when/if any new mechanisms are added.

[FrankJ]

IKE did a great job covering this topic from the LRI's point of view in an earlier post.

snip

Reading the above together with the provision of T08 (quoted by the OP) "during the entire competition event," I interpret the combination of rules to mean that ALL mechanisms included on the robot at any time during the event should be weighed together when the robot is presented for inspection, and that this should be required when/if any new mechanisms are added.

An interesting point. For hypothetical, You have a 120 lb robot. During the competition you couldn't pull your 30 lb climber to put on you 10 lb blocker (fabbed during competition) because the total weight would be 130lbs? IE during reinspection the removed climber should be included as part of the robot.

Replacing damaged parts one for one is a different discussion.

[Alpha Beta]

Thanks, Jefferson! ...and just so you know, 2789 is working on version 4 of a blocker, and we will hopefully be unveiling it this week at Alamo...this mod is specifically based on something we noticed about 1986 at Lubbock, so if we run into them at champs, we will hopefully give them a pretty good headache ;)

I am willing to bet there are a few teams competing in Oklahoma this weekend that would love to know your planned strategy for shutting down 1986. I know we would have used that knowledge in KC a few weeks ago to turn the outcome of just one semi-final game. :)

We'll have to keep an eye on Alamo. :cool: Hopefully our neighbors (1987) will take a little video for us to review. All short shooters are susceptible to similar defensive strategies, even more so if they have a limited number of sweet spots to shoot from. Our drivers are training for this. Maybe Oklahoma will help us sharpen those defense evasion skills. ;)

[Donut]

I'll give a little bit of the background here, since our team was responsible for 2 of the times that this happened at Wisconsin this weekend (including against 3692, 4212, and 3734 in the quarterfinals).

As noted with this picture (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/38869), we played qualification match 65 against team 4212 and knew we were going to get smoked if we didn't stop their full court shooter. 71 and 167 helped 3734 add an 84" blocker to their robot before that match and got it re-inspected. I wasn't there in person but I heard there was a lengthy discussion as to the legality of the mechanism, and many of the robot inspectors at the event got involved in the inspection process. It was initially ruled legal but that any modification like this would have to be permanent (i.e. 3734 couldn't remove the blocker in future matches), but this was corrected sometime later and the blocker was ruled as a reconfigurable mechanism.

When we got picked by the #8 alliance and knew we were facing 4212 again we opted to do the same thing, this time adding an 84" blocker to 1781. Less weight to work with and some drivetrain issues meant it didn't work out as well as Friday's blocker did but it was still our best shot at advancing in eliminations since we knew we didn't have the firepower to outscore 4212.

In both cases the robots that had blockers added to them were under the weight limit and within the height rules with the mechanism added. I believe neither one had to remove any components to stay within the weight restrictions which makes the blockers reconfigurable mechanisms that could be added/removed at will.

I see the potential rub in the interpretation of "during the entire competition event", but if this was taken to literally mean no changes after initial inspection then a team could not make any repairs or improvements once they pass inspection. If you had a broken shooter Friday morning, you would just have to live with your broken shooter the rest of competition. Similarly if something failed that could not be replaced like for like (say a weld on a frame) then the team would have to remain broken the remainder of the event. This is obviously not how FIRST has ruled in the past (how many times have you seen teams "get things working" Saturday morning?), and I hope they won't ever rule this way or we might see a mass defection to the SECOND Robotics Competition.

In the 2 cases we were involved in the robots in question could pass inspection with or without the blocker mechanism attached. Here's something I'm less sure of; if the robots in question had to remove something in order to have enough weight for the blocker (say a broken shooter), are they violating R05 since weight is determined for all mechanisms on the robot in all possible configurations? Are they okay if they never use that part again (a "permanent" change)? What determines when mechanisms are considered reconfigurable and thus R05 matters?

R05

The ROBOT weight may not exceed 120 lbs. When determining weight, the basic ROBOT structure and all elements of all additional MECHANISMS that might be used in different configurations of the ROBOT shall be weighed together.

[DELurker]

The simple answer to the OP is that no event has ever been judged the way that you are looking for. It would defeat the spirit of teams cooperating in the pits to improve their robots.

Yes, T08 is in opposition to T10 and T11 if you read them straight without any background or interpretation. However, T08 appears to be intended for robots that arrived as multiple-configuration robots. In essence, it penalizes them with the weight penalty. Anything actually constructed at the event is legal in install as long as you pass a re-inspection.

Basically, it boils down to how to differentiate between a team who arrives with a inadvertently unusable robot (strategically useless, for instance) and a team who improves a functional robot.

[Alpha Beta]

In the 2 cases we were involved in the robots in question could pass inspection with or without the blocker mechanism attached. Here's something I'm less sure of; if the robots in question had to remove something in order to have enough weight for the blocker (say a broken shooter), are they violating R05 since weight is determined for all mechanisms on the robot in all possible configurations? Are they okay if they never use that part again (a "permanent" change)? What determines when mechanisms are considered reconfigurable and thus R05 matters?

Interesting line of questioning. I know in KC we went by the inspector station when making our pick list to check on robot weights. Anybody who didn't have enough weight left to add a blocker without removing something was scrutinized. I do know of at least 1 robot that was listed at 120 lbs that added a pool noodle blocker for elims. I'm not sure if the 120 was incorrectly listed in the inspector station, or if they removed something to add the blocker.

[DanCreed3692]

Dan,
I cut out a lot of your statement and bolded a couple of areas of concern. You have interjected your opinion and added an assumed "initial" to the actual rules. This happens a lot in life and in FRC competitions. Small assumptions like this can cause a lot of upset feelings.



I'm not trying to create hurt feelings.. and I didn't assume the inital versus actual rules.. I pointed this out.. the same rules states that these mechanisms etc.. must be inspected etc.. "for the entire competition event"... Does that not imply from start to finish e.g.. from first inspection to the closing ceremonies?

Everyone in this thread has a valid point... I think one other person hit the key issue in that some of the rules are conflicting with each other..

I see both points of the argument... in that it's cool to see teams get creative and to respond to a powerful robot and figure out a way to combat it once the competition has begun. I also however see the argument for the rule of T08... and the thought that then they should modify their existing mechanisms to defend the robot, not build a completely new mechanism to defeat the robot.. (and the argument they should have thought about that style of play BEFORE the regional)..

Like I said I see both sides, and arguments... I just wanted to see what others opinions are..

[Jon Stratis]

Teams are allowed to make changes... otherwise you would have a lot more teams with issues than the few that have added blockers during the competition.

Further, any inspection supersedes any previous inspection. If a team builds a blocker to add to their robot on Friday, they are no longer legal, until they get reinspected. At the point of that reinspection, all mechanisms that are and were a part of that robot are required to be present. If you're sitting right at 120lbs, you can't remove a 30lb shooter in order to add a 10lb blocker - both the shooter and the blocker would be included as part of the overall weight. However, if you were under 120lbs, and could add the shooter without taking anything off, how is this different (from the point of view of the rules) from a team modifying their shooter to make it more accurate? The rules don't say anything about robot capabilities, or intended use of mechanisms, or anything like that.

In my mind, the grey area here is when a team is right at the weight limit and makes a change that includes removing something and adding something else. What happens when the team disassembles the old mechanism and uses the parts to construct the new one? Is this a swappable mechanism at this point, or is this a permanent change? What happens if a team spends an hour swiss-cheesing their robot in order to drop enough weight to add something to their shooter to make it more accurate? Do we need to collect all the metal shavings and weigh them with the robot too?

These are just some examples where teams can really try to lawyer the rules, instead of looking at the intent of the rules.

The intent of T08 is to ensure that robots designed with swappable mechanisms follow strict weight rules. It's not intended to prevent teams from making modifications to their robot.

[DanCreed3692]

I'll give a little bit of the background here, since our team was responsible for 2 of the times that this happened at Wisconsin this weekend (including against 3692, 4212, and 3734 in the quarterfinals).

As noted with this picture (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/38869), we played qualification match 65 against team 4212 and knew we were going to get smoked if we didn't stop their full court shooter. 71 and 167 helped 3734 add an 84" blocker to their robot before that match and got it re-inspected. I wasn't there in person but I heard there was a lengthy discussion as to the legality of the mechanism, and many of the robot inspectors at the event got involved in the inspection process. It was initially ruled legal but that any modification like this would have to be permanent (i.e. 3734 couldn't remove the blocker in future matches), but this was corrected sometime later and the blocker was ruled as a reconfigurable mechanism.

When we got picked by the #8 alliance and knew we were facing 4212 again we opted to do the same thing, this time adding an 84" blocker to 1781. Less weight to work with and some drivetrain issues meant it didn't work out as well as Friday's blocker did but it was still our best shot at advancing in eliminations since we knew we didn't have the firepower to outscore 4212.

In both cases the robots that had blockers added to them were under the weight limit and within the height rules with the mechanism added. I believe neither one had to remove any components to stay within the weight restrictions which makes the blockers reconfigurable mechanisms that could be added/removed at will.

I see the potential rub in the interpretation of "during the entire competition event", but if this was taken to literally mean no changes after initial inspection then a team could not make any repairs or improvements once they pass inspection. If you had a broken shooter Friday morning, you would just have to live with your broken shooter the rest of competition. Similarly if something failed that could not be replaced like for like (say a weld on a frame) then the team would have to remain broken the remainder of the event. This is obviously not how FIRST has ruled in the past (how many times have you seen teams "get things working" Saturday morning?), and I hope they won't ever rule this way or we might see a mass defection to the SECOND Robotics Competition.

In the 2 cases we were involved in the robots in question could pass inspection with or without the blocker mechanism attached. Here's something I'm less sure of; if the robots in question had to remove something in order to have enough weight for the blocker (say a broken shooter), are they violating R05 since weight is determined for all mechanisms on the robot in all possible configurations? Are they okay if they never use that part again (a "permanent" change)? What determines when mechanisms are considered reconfigurable and thus R05 matters?


Actually thats not true.. T08 would CLEARLY allow you to repair, modify or reconfigure ANY mechanism during the Regional (or other event)... provided it was presented at inspection (and here is the rub) and available for use "during the entier competition event".... It's really that entire competition event thats the rub... How can you honestly say that isn't in conflict with other rules and imply that you can't add new mechanisms in the middle of the competition (however there are other rules that imply you can as well)... hence the conflict between rules. However people keep pointing to other rules as implying you can do this.. however I point out.. NO OTHER rule specifically states "for the entire competition event"..

[Amy_LeadFerret]

As the team with the full court shooter about which this discussion started, 4212, I wanted to post my thoughts on how things played out at Wisconsin.

We're a second year team still learning how everything works. I read the competition manual and updates religiously during the Build Season and did not see the last-minute-pool-noodle extension coming. Because we shoot at a height of about 54 inches and saw that most bots were re-makes of the much shorter Robot in 3 Days prototype, I assumed our biggest obstacle would be making it to the feeder station and lining up. I thought through the possibility of an opponents' climber mechanism reaching above 60 inches to block our shots but also thought that wouldn't be a smart usage of time unless the mechanism couldn't produce a viable climb for the bot.

But, after watching matches in Weeks 1 and 2, I knew our full court shooter would be toast at some point but was just hoping to get as far as we could before that happened. We were ecstatic to make it to semi finals and somewhat proud of the fact that we sparked fear in the hearts of our opponents :)

[JesseK]

Fundamentally, I agree with allowing total redesigns or modifications at competition. The modifying team will be behind the curve when it comes to practicing with said mechanisms, which is the potential pitfall. Additionally, it allows teams who've poured hours into a design that just isn't panning out to make a change and get inspired by teams who did.

Just be glad for the fact that FRC teams who pour effort into difficult autonomous routines can't be denied their gratification. In FTC, that still isn't the case. One would think that FRC's [G19] would be feasible to implement across all platforms, given the level of difficulty and effort required.

[EricLeifermann]

T08

At the time of Inspection, the ROBOT must be presented with all MECHANISMS (including all COMPONENTS of each MECHANISM), configurations, and decorations that will be used on the ROBOT during the entire competition event. It is acceptable, however, for a ROBOT to play MATCHES with a subset of the MECHANISMS that were present during Inspection. Only MECHANISMS that were present during the Inspection may be added, removed or reconfigured between MATCHES. If MECHANISMS are changed between MATCHES, the reconfigured ROBOT must still meet all Inspection criteria.


I want to see what peoples take on this rule is. To me I read this as that each robot has to be presented at initial inspection with all components of each mechanism for any configurations that are planned to be used during the "ENTIRE COMPETITION EVENT".... E.G. if you came to the competition with a robot designed to be an awesome shooter, but then suddenly see another team has this awesome device, or some other component that allows it to do something completely different. I talking adds a totally new function to your robot and you thus start playing the game in a tottaly different way because of this new mechanism it should NOT be allowed. In fact it even goes on to specifically state that ONLY Mechanisms that were present during during the inspection may be added/removed/reconfigured between matches..

We got the #1 seed, and went to finals with an AWESOME long range shooter and had two teams them subsuqently out of the blue build completely jury rigged 84" masts with plastic and netting specifically added to block our alliance partners shots. These masts WERE NOT used during any other matches, were NOT presented during initial inspection, and didn't exist until other teams saw the threat our long range shooting alliance partner brought to the table.
(much more importantly they did not exist in any way shape or form before initial inspection).
What are your thoughts. Personally I think the rule is pretty black in white, as it does specifically state that the mechanisms used for the entire competition event must be presented at inspection (implies initial one), and then further clarifies that ONLY mechanisms preesented during inspection may be added/removed/reconfigured... thus further indicating the intention to not allow teams to fabricate new mechansisms out of the blue to add whole new funcationality just to defeat other teams with a different design that is difficult to defend with the robot you brought to the arena...


As part of an alliance the had a team "jury rig a blocker" as you said, to block your shots. Please someone correct me from 269 if I am wrong, but they got inspected on Thursday with said blocker on(and on Saturday before elims started), they just didn't play with it until they needed it. Which was when we faced you in the semis. It was a valid strategy that we really only used in the 1st match as 269 prevented 4212 from even getting to the feeder station in the 2nd match.

You were undoubtedly upset over losing (who isn't?), however we all followed the rules.

Good luck to all teams in their upcoming regionals, hope to see many of you in St. Louis!

[buchanan]

At the point of that reinspection, all mechanisms that are and were a part of that robot are required to be present. If you're sitting right at 120lbs, you can't remove a 30lb shooter in order to add a 10lb blocker - both the shooter and the blocker would be included as part of the overall weight.

I think this is a reasonable interpretation that ought to be explicit in the rules. Once a mechanism has been used in competition, replacing it with another shouldn't allow you to reinspect as though it never existed. What you've really done is added a new interchangeable mechanism to your robot in addition to the previous one.

We noticed this at the WI regional too, but from a different angle. We brought to the competition a robot with significant shot-blocking capability to begin with. When the improvised blockers started appearing, we didn't see anything wrong with it, but they did dilute what was once a competitive advantage for us. Ad-hoc engineering feels right and in the spirit of what the competition is about, but a line needs to exist somewhere, and the interchangeable mechanism weight limit seems a sensible place to have it.

[Tristan Lall]

This has come up before. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=477565#post477565) (The relevant rules were similar in 2005 and 2006.)

[EricLeifermann]

Teams are allowed to make changes... otherwise you would have a lot more teams with issues than the few that have added blockers during the competition.

Further, any inspection supersedes any previous inspection. If a team builds a blocker to add to their robot on Friday, they are no longer legal, until they get reinspected. At the point of that reinspection, all mechanisms that are and were a part of that robot are required to be present. If you're sitting right at 120lbs, you can't remove a 30lb shooter in order to add a 10lb blocker - both the shooter and the blocker would be included as part of the overall weight. However, if you were under 120lbs, and could add the shooter without taking anything off, how is this different (from the point of view of the rules) from a team modifying their shooter to make it more accurate? The rules don't say anything about robot capabilities, or intended use of mechanisms, or anything like that.

In my mind, the grey area here is when a team is right at the weight limit and makes a change that includes removing something and adding something else. What happens when the team disassembles the old mechanism and uses the parts to construct the new one? Is this a swappable mechanism at this point, or is this a permanent change? What happens if a team spends an hour swiss-cheesing their robot in order to drop enough weight to add something to their shooter to make it more accurate? Do we need to collect all the metal shavings and weigh them with the robot too?

These are just some examples where teams can really try to lawyer the rules, instead of looking at the intent of the rules.

The intent of T08 is to ensure that robots designed with swappable mechanisms follow strict weight rules. It's not intended to prevent teams from making modifications to their robot.


If the team took off their shooter to put the blocker on because with both the shooter and blocker they are over weight, then they should still pass the new inspection. However they would have to play without their shooter for the rest to the competition including elims. They would not be allowed to put the shooter back on as that would violate the "multiple interchangeable mechanisms must be included in the 120 pound limit" rule.

That is how I have seen it enforced in all my years, and how it was enforced at Northern Lights. As I am not an RI, I can only comment on how I have seen it enforced and how I interpret the rule. Final ruling goes to the LRI at each competition. Though having the rules on hand to cite never hurts, when politely disagreeing with your robot inspectors.

[Jon Stratis]

If the team took off their shooter to put the blocker on because with both the shooter and blocker they are over weight, then they should still pass the new inspection. However they would have to play without their shooter for the rest to the competition including elims. They would not be allowed to put the shooter back on as that would violate the "multiple interchangeable mechanisms must be included in the 120 pound limit" rule.

That is how I have seen it enforced in all my years, and how it was enforced at Northern Lights. As I am not an RI, I can only comment on how I have seen it enforced and how I interpret the rule. Final ruling goes to the LRI at each competition. Though having the rules on hand to cite never hurts, when politely disagreeing with your robot inspectors.

How many times do you have to swap mechanisms for it to be considered "multiple interchangeable mechanisms"? Is swapping once enough, or do you have to go back to the original set up at least once? What defines a design change on the robot, versus swapping mechanisms? It's tricky to figure out... IMO, if the old mechanism is still a viable robot mechanism (still intact and could be put back on), then it gets weighed. If the team chooses to disassemble the mechanism, then it could be a different story. If they remove the mechanism from the venue (and thus are not allowed to bring it back in), then it could be a different story. I was fortunate and didn't have to deal with any of this at Lake Superior (we had no full court shooters, and thus no radically changing robots, unlike you guys!), but with North Star coming up in a few days, I may be forced to solidify my interpretation of this rule, and figure out exactly where I draw the line.

At any rate, I would encourage everyone to get their LRI involved early on if you're considering making a significant change that might, in any small way, run afoul of this rule, even if you think it shouldn't.

[Alan Anderson]

I think this is a reasonable interpretation that ought to be explicit in the rules. Once a mechanism has been used in competition, replacing it with another shouldn't allow you to reinspect as though it never existed. What you've really done is added a new interchangeable mechanism to your robot in addition to the previous one.

You say you think it's reasonable, but I don't understand your reasoning. Inspection is to verify that the robot follows the rules. There are no rules that say a robot part must remain a part of the robot in perpetuity.

If you remove an ineffective floor pickup system and add a simple bucket for manual loading at a feeder station, the floor pickup is no longer part of the robot, and should have no bearing on the inspection. If you completely replace a pneumatic catapult with a motor-driven spinning wheel, I can't see how anyone can seriously argue that the now-obsolete catapult is still an optional part of the robot and has to be counted in the robot's weight when the modified robot is inspected.

[Gregor]

At any rate, I would encourage everyone to get their LRI involved early on if you're considering making a significant change that might, in any small way, run afoul of this rule, even if you think it shouldn't.

This.

[buchanan]

Maybe I'm just "borrowing trouble", but this looks to me like a loophole through which a team could bring two alternative mechanisms to the competition, present only one for initial inspection, then swap in the other if they decided the first wasn't as effective as they'd thought, effectively giving two shots at picking the best design.

I guess at some point you have to just trust people to adhere to the spirit of the rules, but it seems to me it's better to get as much into the letter as reasonably possible to forestall temptation. The "add but not subtract" approach would do this, albeit at the cost of loss of modification flexibility being the price of squeaking in under the weight limit initially. This does not seem like such a bad thing.

[connor.worley]

Maybe I'm just "borrowing trouble", but this looks to me like a loophole through which a team could bring two alternative mechanisms to the competition, present only one for initial inspection, then swap in the other if they decided the first wasn't as effective as they'd thought, effectively giving two shots at picking the best design.

This sounds like a brilliant example of planning ahead.

[Chris is me]

Maybe I'm just "borrowing trouble", but this looks to me like a loophole through which a team could bring two alternative mechanisms to the competition, present only one for initial inspection, then swap in the other if they decided the first wasn't as effective as they'd thought, effectively giving two shots at picking the best design.

I don't see why this is a bad thing? The opportunity cost is if they are at weight with one mechanism, the decision to switch to another mechanism is permanent (for that regional). In terms of "fairness", it's not functionally any different from building two designs and deciding which to use at home.

[andya]

Hi,

I'm the drive team mentor for team 4212.

Since I'm a noob, I was asking a lot of questions of everyone I talked with, both competitors and officials. I want to thank everyone I talked to for the tips you all gave me.

I asked the inspectors what we can change on the robot. The few inspectors that were there replied as long as we did not go over the set limits, we could make any wanted or needed changes anytime you are allowed to work on your robot as long as you come back after every change and get re-inspected. One inspector was adamant, any changes no matter how small or big needed to have an inspection after said change.

This was as specific as the inspectors got with me on changes, and appears the rules are subject to the officiating staff’s interpretation and implementation of the rules. I thought, by the rules, what parts you came to the competition with is what you had to compete with as long as the total robot weight did not go over 120lb regardless of the parts.

[EricH]

I asked the inspectors what we can change on the robot. The few inspectors that were there replied as long as we did not go over the set limits, we could make any wanted or needed changes anytime you are allowed to work on your robot as long as you come back after every change and get re-inspected. One inspector was adamant, any changes no matter how small or big needed to have an inspection after said change. This is what the rules call out. If you make a change, reinspect. (There are some changes that that does not apply to--if you had a 10-lb shooter, a 10 lb blocker, and a 100 lb robot, and you showed up and inspected with both but could only carry one at a time, you wouldn't need reinspection--but those are fairly rare.)

... and appears the rules are subject to the officiating staff’s interpretation and implementation of the rules. I thought, by the rules, what parts you came to the competition with is what you had to compete with as long as the total robot weight did not go over 120lb regardless of the parts.Yes and no, and not quite. You're raising two points here that are both very good questions to raise.

First, the rules are implemented by the officiating staff. You've obviously read them, so you've seen the part about the Head Ref's decision is final. However, if you can show, say, the regional director, that the official is in direct violation of the rules, or of the standard interpretation, then someone from higher up will have a talk with them about correcting their interpretation and implementation. It's happened before. To take the Head Ref as an example, he can get input from any FIRST officials at the event, including any members of the Game Design Committee that happen to be present. LRIs and Head Refs and FTAs all have contact info for their leaders--and I haven't seen the Lead LRI comment here yet, but I know he's around somewhere. If that lead disagrees with the ref or inspector, the lead wins.

Second, to address the "parts you come with is what you have to compete with as long as the total weight does not go over 120lb" part: You did not read this part of the rules thoroughly enough, I'm afraid. You come in with your robot in the bag, up to 30 lb of fabricated items (not counting batteries, bumpers, and the operator console), your team members and your spirit items. But, I'm leaving something off of this list, because it's not restricted anywhere. And that is, raw material.

You can bring in as much raw material as you can carry, typically in as many trips as you need. I know that's not explicitly called out in the Manual; it used to be, but some rules seem to disappear or become vague every now and again as they become ingrained in the various teams' mentality. It takes somebody asking questions to wake people up and confirm the rule. It used to be not uncommon for teams to come in with a couple aluminum tubing pieces or PVC pipe.

I could go into an example, but I think you get the point. Keep asking questions; we're here to provide answers, even if they aren't official ones.

[Andrew Schreiber]

One inspector was adamant, any changes no matter how small or big needed to have an inspection after said change.

They are correct. I know in Orlando when we mounted our GoPro we had an inspector check it and asked him to note on the form that he had. Minor change that added no competitive advantage to the robot (aside from the sub 1lb increase in weight that meant we were still something like 10 lbs under) but no reason to chance it. Obviously, there are limits, swapping out a zip tie for a new one or putting new tread on your wheels is probably not a worry. But if you are adding or removing anything substantial have them give it a quick once over. Can't hurt.

[Grim Tuesday]

This can all be solved by a Q&A which I have asked. And now we wait.

Question on T08:

Q610: Please clarify what is meant by "time of Inspection." Does it mean time of initial inspection or any time of inspection? In other words, may a ROBOT add a MECHANISM after initial inspection, be reinspected and compete legally? Assume the ROBOT remains legal after the later inspection.

[Jon Stratis]

First, the rules are implemented by the officiating staff. You've obviously read them, so you've seen the part about the Head Ref's decision is final. However, if you can show, say, the regional director, that the official is in direct violation of the rules, or of the standard interpretation, then someone from higher up will have a talk with them about correcting their interpretation and implementation. It's happened before. To take the Head Ref as an example, he can get input from any FIRST officials at the event, including any members of the Game Design Committee that happen to be present. LRIs and Head Refs and FTAs all have contact info for their leaders--and I haven't seen the Lead LRI comment here yet, but I know he's around somewhere. If that lead disagrees with the ref or inspector, the lead wins.

There's a reason the rules state "At each event, the Lead ROBOT Inspector (LRI) has final authority on the legality of any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT." (Section 5.5.2)... Very often individuals like the regional director aren't fully versed on the rules or how the GDC has interpreted them, and they haven't been through the same training as the LRI. Additionally, they may not be as familiar with robot design or construction as the inspectors are. As a result, attempting to circumvent the LRI in order to get a more favorable ruling is generally bad for everyone. All of the LRI's have phone numbers for both FIRST and the Chief Robot Inspector, and we certainly feel free to use them if anything extremely difficult comes up. Even if the situation isn't extremely difficult, if the ruling could be at all considered controversial, you can bet the LRI is going to include the Head Ref and the FTA in making the decision. I know I would.

If a team shows up with a difficult situation, the LRI's know how to go about obtaining additional opinions and interpretations before issuing a final ruling... That said, the LRI's ruling is final, per the rulebook. It may not seem fair if a ruling is going against you, but keep in mind that the LRI's are all doing their best to rule fairly and to help every team there.

[EricH]

There's a reason the rules state "At each event, the Lead ROBOT Inspector (LRI) has final authority on the legality of any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT." (Section 5.5.2)... Very often individuals like the regional director aren't fully versed on the rules or how the GDC has interpreted them, and they haven't been through the same training as the LRI. Additionally, they may not be as familiar with robot design or construction as the inspectors are. As a result, attempting to circumvent the LRI in order to get a more favorable ruling is generally bad for everyone.

I picked the regional director as the first person who would be likely to be able to get somebody's attention in a hurry. Note that I'm almost assuming that the LRI is making a ruling that is counter to the robot rules (as interpreted by any relevant Q&As) and sticking to it--in such a case, I would anticipate the regional director telling the appropriate parties to deal with the situation, or at least to hear the team out.

[$G-money$]

I am also a member of the 4212 (Technoferrets) drive team. I had loads of fun this year.
I decided that 269 was made to defend us and to what everyone says about them...i think everything they did was legal. One thing i do not agree with is the Game Manual. Not to take this as a bash, but I think the rules need to be better detailed for events such as these.
I really wanted to have 269 on our team because of their powerful drivetrain, but not everything works out the way you want it.
The first match they kept us from the feeder station for a while and then blocked a couple of our shots (even caused us to break a bumper in the process). In the second match they played outstanding defense, and we weren't even able to touch our feeder station.

[Siri]

The Q&A was answered, by the way:

Q. Please clarify what is meant by "time of Inspection." Does it mean time of initial inspection or any time of inspection? In other words, may a ROBOT add a MECHANISM after initial inspection, be reinspected and compete legally? Assume the ROBOT remains legal after the later inspection.
A. "Time of Inspection" is when yourROBOT is being Inspected. If you make changes to your ROBOT after Inspection, you must have those changes re-Inspected before being considered "legal" again, per [T10].

So yes, (as 173 people expected) such modifications are allowed provided you meet T10.

[karomata]

I don't think that it is that big of a problem. It helps complete the design process because teams see their robots in action, realize its major faults, and correct them. It also helps the game itself progress because it causes almost like an arms race to create the ultimate robot design.

1511 at the Finger Lakes Regional lacked many important driver aids and a working climber. Though modification and prototying on a practice robot, they added a photon cannon, modified climber, improved debug software, and I believe a few other things as well. They then went on to win the Boston Regional. Had they not been able to modify their robot at all, they would have been stuck in the same position the whole season as they were at FLR.

[fsgond]

I hate to say it but I think adding items are allowed. The main reason that I hate to see it is because our full court shooter was shut down late Friday into Saturday when people caught wind that we could do it. The rule states that the modifications must still be within the rule. The field ref does have the right to call for your robot to be reinspected at any time. Also if you were to follow the rule to the letter, you would need to be reinspected every time you added a screw that was not there during initial inspection. In reality we all add items to the robot in good faith that they are following the rules and do not call inspectors over for every little thing.

[DanCreed3692]

Just to clarify, I'm not upset that our team lost. We lost fair and square, as has been pointed out on this thread the final decision lies with the cheif inspector on if the addition is legal, and I support that. I only raised the question to point out the flaw in the (possible) conflicting rules, especially in light of the "during the whole competition event" phrase.

All the teams at the Wisconsin Regional did an awesome job, and we look forward to seeing you all next year.

[markmcgary]

Just to clarify, I'm not upset that our team lost. We lost fair and square, as has been pointed out on this thread the final decision lies with the cheif inspector on if the addition is legal, and I support that. I only raised the question to point out the flaw in the (possible) conflicting rules, especially in light of the "during the whole competition event" phrase.

All the teams at the Wisconsin Regional did an awesome job, and we look forward to seeing you all next year.

Yep. They should fix T08: "At the time of Inspection, the ROBOT must be presented with all MECHANISMS (including all COMPONENTS of each MECHANISM), configurations, and decorations that will be used on the ROBOT." PERIOD. And remove "during the entire competition event." from the rule.

[lcoreyl]

Yep. They should fix T08: "At the time of Inspection, the ROBOT must be presented with all MECHANISMS (including all COMPONENTS of each MECHANISM), configurations, and decorations that will be used on the ROBOT." PERIOD. And remove "during the entire competition event." from the rule.

I disagree. "Used on the robot"... for the next match? ...for the rest of Friday?

I read "during the entire competition event" combined with T10 to mean "used on the robot" ...from the time of THAT inspection until the end of the event OR until a new inspection is performed.

IMO, reading "during the entire competition event" to mean the robot can only include mechanisms present at the initial inspection is "lawyering" this rule. Again--just my opinion.

Watching teams engaged in design iteration during the limited window of Thursday practice, then in between Friday and Saturday matches, is like Jazz.

This! I've seen one season of ours rescued by the pursuit of a complete re-design due to major systems failures. The re-design didn't work out either, but it sure kept spirits up heading into eliminations. To me, that is much more the spirit of FIRST...

[Siri]

I disagree. "Used on the robot"... for the next match? ...for the rest of Friday?

I read "during the entire competition event" combined with T10 to mean "used on the robot" ...from the time of THAT inspection until the end of the event OR until a new inspection is performed.

IMO, reading "during the entire competition event" to mean the robot can only include mechanisms present at the initial inspection is "lawyering" this rule. Again--just my opinion.Agreed, neither T08 nor T10 make as much sense without clearly indicating T08 is competition-based; it obscures the intent and limitations of interchangeability. T10 is crystal clear that T08 re-inspections are legal; T08 is just telling you when you don't need to get reinspected. If anything, the concept of re-inspection could be incorporated into T08, if it can be done without redundancy.

Didn't we want a shorter rule book?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Guys, so this doesn't get out of hand let me explain the exact way this is handled by inspectors at all events...
Any team can make improvements to their design as long as the pits are open at an event. (other rules also apply for 2 day events) A team that brings a robot to a competition and decides to change functionality, can within limits. If said team is under 120 lbs and they wish to add an interchangeable mechanism that when weighed with the existing mechanisms is still under 120 lbs., they can add and remove said mechanism at will, match to match. That is exactly what happened in Wisconsin, the added blocker was still under 120 lbs with the robot in it's original configuration. The team chose to remove the mechanism when it was no longer needed in later matches. All robots in the finals were inspected, some multiple times as their configuration changed. Many were checked on the field by the LRI.

When a team decides to change the functionality of the robot and the improvement requires that other mechanisms be removed in order to meet the weight requirement, the improvement is not an interchangeable mechanism, it is a change in design. As such, the team may not return to it's original configuration during that event as that violates the interchangeable mechanism rules. The team can reinstall the original mechanism at a subsequent event. As Tristan pointed out this has been the method used at all events for many years.

When a team designs and brings additional mechanisms to an event, and they wish to interchange them during the competition, all have to be presented at inspection and all mechanisms plus the robot must weigh 120lbs or less.

[Grim Tuesday]

Guys, so this doesn't get out of hand let me explain the exact way this is handled by inspectors at all events...
Any team can make improvements to their design as long as the pits are open at an event. (other rules also apply for 2 day events) A team that brings a robot to a competition and decides to change functionality, can within limits. If said team is under 120 lbs and they wish to add an interchangeable mechanism that when weighed with the existing mechanisms is still under 120 lbs., they can add and remove said mechanism at will, match to match. That is exactly what happened in Wisconsin, the added blocker was still under 120 lbs with the robot in it's original configuration. The team chose to remove the mechanism when it was no longer needed in later matches. All robots in the finals were inspected, some multiple times as their configuration changed. Many were checked on the field by the LRI.

When a team decides to change the functionality of the robot and the improvement requires that other mechanisms be removed in order to meet the weight requirement, the improvement is not an interchangeable mechanism, it is a change in design. As such, the team may not return to it's original configuration during that event as that violates the interchangeable mechanism rules. The team can reinstall the original mechanism at a subsequent event. As Tristan pointed out this has been the method used at all events for many years.

When a team designs and brings additional mechanisms to an event, and they wish to interchange them during the competition, all have to be presented at inspection and all mechanisms plus the robot must weigh 120lbs or less.

Thanks a lot for this, Al. This is the assumption we've been working under for the last few years and it makes a lot of sense, it would just be nice to see it codified in the rule book.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Simon,
It is not anything new and is simply following the rules when looked at in total.