About being overweight and exceeding your size requirements – the need for reinspecti

[Godzilla!]

Background:
At both GLR & Detroit this year all robots plus the top 4 standby robots that were to compete in the eliminations were re-inspected for both weight and size.

I was approached by the Head Robot inspector and asked to come to the inspection station Saturday during lunch. Upon arriving, I found that all teams except one had passed inspection. The team that failed exceeded both the size and weight requirements.

This team was given a “Conditional Pass” late Friday morning so they could compete. They did not meet the requirements for size but told the inspectors they would make the required adjustments before competing and based on this were given an inspection sticker.

They did meet the weight requirements Friday morning time.

During the Saturday inspection it was determined that not only did the team not make the required adjustment for size but they actually increased their size. When the robot (without bumpers) was weighed it was found to have exceeded the weight requirements by 13 lbs!

I instructed the inspector to pull the inspection sticker and to tell the team they would not be able to compete unless they got a new inspection sticker.

After a short time period the team reweighed the robot and miraculously now met the weight requirements! As to what they removed I had no idea – could have been weights or the shooter mechanism.

It did take the team a number of tries before they met the size requirements.

When the team finally passed the inspection I asked for the team captain and found he was also the 8’th seed Alliance captain.

During our discussion I informed him that he was to inform the Alliance partners of the teams actions and if they made it to the finals they were to inform all competitors of the inspection results.

I also believe that the additional weight gave the team an illegal performance enhancement and could have been a direct reason why they were the 8’th seed thereby tainting all the teams wins. Given this, I suggested to him that the team should remove themselves from the afternoon competition and replace their robot with a more qualified standby robot.

Results:

The team competed in the eliminations and was eliminated in the first round.

To the best of my knowledge, the inspection results were not passed to the other teams

There was no remorse shown for the inspection results. I believe that the only concern shown by the team was that they got caught.


Conclusion:
Gracious Professionalism?
Concerns?
Rules? There are no rules allowing for retroactive disqualification if a team has been found to violate the robot requirements and I did not do so. There are no rules other than a valid inspection sticker to have kept the team out of the elimination rounds.

What Would You Do?

I would be interested to know opinions of the actions taken by this team and was this appropriately handled.

Sorry for the placement of this thread but I had tried to place this in a moderated area and I guess it didn’t work as I haven’t seen it and I believe that this is an important topic.

Ron Webb
Head Ref
GLR & Detroit

[Pavan Dave]

Weight does give an advantage and I would hope that team would have fessed up. I also think that them being eliminated in the first round proves that weight can make you or break you in this years game*.

Thank you for telling everybody about this problem as this is a very important topic and it is not fair to the teams that play by the rules.

Pavan


*to a certain extent.

[Jason Kixmiller]

Definitely a hard topic...

I believe that one of the toughest challenges of the FIRST competition is the size/weight requirements. I believe that a rule is a rule and if a team doesn't follow this rule, they shouldn't be allowed to compete at all. It certainly isn't a happy scenario - the team worked hard to create their robot, etc. - but providing leniency toward one team creates an unfair advantage and sidesteps a challenge of the game. I don't think this team should have played past practice rounds until the inspection was fully passed.

[Kevin Sevcik]

The obvious difficulty with making a retroactive rule is that you don't know when the weight showed up. They could've added it after their last match. If you're dealing with a team that's already abusing the honor system, they're not going to tell you they added the weight after their first match.

At any rate, FIRST has to work on the honor system. There's little to prevent teams from pulling any number of similar stunts to get a little more performance by skirting the rules. Obviously they should be ashamed of themselves, but I'm unsure what we can do about things if they're not. Possibly we'll have to start being mean and naming names so other teams will know about them. And, of course, bring a heck of a lot more peer pressure into play to reinforce their moral fiber.

[EStokely]

Wow.

Nice light topic for the afternoon.

I guess we learn from this and try to make the appropriate changes for next year. There was a time that a team could anonymously "turn in" another team for re inspection. In an effort to prevent this very problem.

But as you stated there are no mechanisms to deal with the scenario you presented. And I would guess most of us would feel that there should be a way for this type of behavior to be addressed. All you could do was make suggestions. Obviously GP was not being considered by the team as presented here.

I guess I am most concerned with a robot being allowed to compete that didn't pass inspection. Some of this problem could have been addressed if they had not been allowed on the field until they initially met inspection.

So in an effort to turn this into a positive allow me to make a few suggestions for next year, or even future matches this year.
1) No robot competes unless it is within the rules.
2) Weigh before each match, or immediately after each match, at the field (I know logistically this could be a problem but of the size/weight concerns here weight is the bigger problem I suspect)
3) Do random inspections during Friday and sat
4) Have published penalties for breaking the rules. A robot found to be over weight should lose the matches they competed in, even if its retroactive (IMHO) As to which matches I think a case could be made for any "Suspected matches" i.e. any matches between weigh ins.
Harsh? yep. but it is the teams responsibility to keep their weight in spec. If you alter the machine you need to reweigh. That's pretty straight forward.

If these problems are not addressed then what are rules in the future worth? Are they guidelines or are they rules?

[TubaMorg]

Wow what a story! It is my view that they could/should have been disqualified when reinspection showed them to fail both size and weight restrictions.

On my team the kids are CONSTANTLY trying to figure out ways to "lawyer" the rules, but their intent is clear %99 of the time. There may not be a SPECIFIC rule addressing this SPECIFIC violation, because there is no concievable way that the FIRST game designers can account for every single possible scenario that might arise. Even if they tried we would end up with a rule book 10 inches thick. They have done a very good job at describing INTENT so that teams that attempt to circumvent the rules to gain an unfair advantage can be stopped. If there were a rule addressing this issue, then you (as Head Ref.) would be forced to DQ teams that probably shouldn't be DQ'd. I think it is reasonable to except that a team may accidently exceed weight limits by a small amount as a result of emergency repairs in the heat of competition. In this case you would want to give them a chance to rectify the situation.

12 lbs. over weight is clearly a deliberate middle finger at the rules and other teams. I am betting that their pneumatic system is involved, based on the size change and weight change. Our team had to redesign without a air system and that was just about the weight we saved(compressor + storage + cylinders). And the components are ez to take off and put back on. Either that or a couple of drive motors. Either way it makes no difference, because they added weight (and presumably functionality) to their robot that gave them an advantage in the competition. I 100% agree with your assesment and analysis of the violation, but wish you would have DQ'd them on the spot and told them to try again next year with a robot that complies with the rules. Who knows? One of the teams that were on standby may have been seeded much higher if the other team hadn't cheated, right?

So the rules don't specify any actual punishments/penalties to be assesed for this violation, but clearly they violated several rules:
Weight
Size
Didn't get reinspected after making a change to robot design after initial inspection
Not to mention WAY anti-GP

The rules only say each team must pass initial inspection before competing (which this team did) and gives the officials leeway to reinspect before or after matches. In this case, you felt compelled (against your gut intinct) to allow the team to continue. I doubt, however, there are many teams out there that would have objected to having that team removed from the competition. I am sure we could open a different thread asking people to dream up of ways violate the rules without getting DQ'd. There are many (much more subtle) ways to gain an unfair advantage in this competition and NOT get caught. Many aspects are governed by the honor system. When teams begin snubbing the rules we establish a slippery slope, where other teams must respond in kind (violating rules) just to remain competitive. So, again, the more I think about it the more I am in favor of DQing this team in this case.

Perhaps as a remedial solution, they should be placed on probation, should they choose to compete next year. The should be informed they will be receiving a disportionately large number of "random" inspections. Or the brainiac mentor who allowed this should be removed from the team. Something.

[Alex Cormier]

I see it as follows. If your robot is over weight or outside of the requirement size. It should not compete until otherwise legal. giving the team a special way out is unacceptable and should not have been done at all or even thought of. Let's look at it like this. If you get pulled over for doing 85mph (i don't know the conversion for our Canadian friends up north:p ) in a 55mph zone in a old rusty Buick. Does the cop believe that his measuring device is wrong because it's a old rusty Buick and let's the driver off with a warning? no. The officer gives the driver a ticket no matter what because their measuring device said that the old rusty Buick was going over 55 mph.

So, the robot should not have been allowed to play any matches at all unless under weight and in the 'box'. If once passed they should have been inspected on a few occasions to see if they stayed legal. the best bet would be to have them measured directly after a match before they even go to their pit area. If they are illegal they should be DQ from their previous match and get no QP. It's just like the speed testing this year but should be normal for all robots that were illegal coming into the event.

I hope this has to never be discussed again on how the robot got away with what it has done and will not happen to any other teams at any other competitions. it's just not right.

[kawelch]

I agree that the honor system needs to be used by teams and not try to skirt the intent of rules. I also agree that no team should participate in a qualifying or elimination match that has not passed inspections. I also agree it is the TEAMS responsibility to get reinspected after any modification. But I draw the line at practice matches. A team that barely finished their Robot in time to ship has many things to finish besides the building of the robot. The driver needs practice time, the programmers need to debug, etc. In between matches the team can fix the weight/size problem. It also doesn't help other teams practice if the robots from other alliences don't show up.
It would be nice if our culture allowed for people to "play by the rules" rather than "play to win or get caught whichever comes first"

[Kevin Sevcik]

4) Have published penalties for breaking the rules. A robot found to be over weight should lose the matches they competed in, even if its retroactive (IMHO) As to which matches I think a case could be made for any "Suspected matches" i.e. any matches between weigh ins.
Harsh? yep. but it is the teams responsibility to keep their weight in spec. If you alter the machine you need to reweigh. That's pretty straight forward.This is the problem you run in to. If you just say "suspected matches" and leave it for someone to determine, then you're putting a lot of gray area in there. If you're saying since they were last weighed... Well a team is likely to be weighed once at inspection and maybe once at your random inspection. And if you're an ounce over weight and lose half of your matches cause someone left a wrench on the robot.... Well that's not fun.

As for reweighing after every robot change... That'd keep inspection hopping the entire weekend. Not to mention teams missing matches cause they're in line to get re-weighed after a simple change.

Plus, this ignores other re-inspection issues like swapping 40 amp breakers for 50, or any of a hundred other nefarious changes an ill-intentioned team can pull.

Basically, I think any hard and fast rules about this are much more likely to horribly punish teams that mean well and accidentally end up a pound over after a weekend of wrestling with a robot. They're not likely to deter the theoretical (and likely few) teams that intetionally go out there and break the rules for an advantage.

[jacob07]

I cant believe that a team would want to cheat in this lovely sport. This sport is all about following the rules. Thats why I love it so much. Its not about winning or about being the best. Its about having a good time. Thats what my team thirves in and its hard for me to see why a team would feel it necessary to make it more then that. It confuses me but not everyone in this world playsl by the rules as they showed all of us. Thanks Ron for sharing

[Swan217]

Retroactively DQ the team for every match that they were overweight. If they do not give a time that they added the weight, or cannot otherwise prove that they were at one time running matches at 120 lbs, then they are DQed for every match. In the case where alliances have already been decided, the 1st replacement bot is used.

[BRosser314]

At GLR this year a certain team in the finals called out the whole other alliance and made them all recheck there speeds or there shooter. All of these teams passed and went on to win the regional, could some of these decisions that people make be guided towards being a bad sport. This sportt is all about being a gracious proffesional and having good sportsmanship.

I remember back to my freshmen year, 3 years ago the game was Stack Attack. We had a lartge sweeper arm that we could use to knock down the whole stack. When we would take our sweeper off for finals matches we would add weight but always make sure we didnt go over because we ha pre-made weights that just had to be bolt on. Do you think this is wrong? We have yet done it since then but would teams be offended by this or look down on teams that did do this?

At the end of saturday at GLR we made some modifications to our robot making sure we cut off pieces if we added pieces. Without weighing our robot we went to Midwest and weighed in we were almost 13 pounds overweight. Without thinking we left the battery on our bot. When we took it off we were back down to that nice and light 119.6lbs. Could that team that was 13lbs overweight in all weigh-ins, have weighed ther bot with battery. If so it was an honest mistake to a veteran team that was thinking back to a few years ago.

[Alan Anderson]

...When the robot (without bumpers) was weighed it was found to have exceeded the weight requirements by 13 lbs!

I instructed the inspector to pull the inspection sticker and to tell the team they would not be able to compete unless they got a new inspection sticker.

After a short time period the team reweighed the robot and miraculously now met the weight requirements! As to what they removed I had no idea – could have been weights or the shooter mechanism.
Or it could just have been the battery. That would match a "miraculous" 13 pound difference. It's possible it was merely accidentally included during the first weighing.

[Billfred]

Could that team that was 13lbs overweight in all weigh-ins, have weighed ther bot with battery. If so it was an honest mistake to a veteran team that was thinking back to a few years ago.
It could be.

Personally, I'm wondering just how bad it'd be if teams had to weigh in before each match. Just drop your robot on the scale, make weight, and pick it back up to go onto the field. Probably would take a second scale, though.

[ChuckDickerson]

Or it could just have been the battery. That would match a "miraculous" 13 pound difference. It's possible it was merely accidentally included during the first weighing.

Isn't the reason we now weigh in without the battery because the batteries can vary a pound or more from one to the other and teams were picking their lightest battery to weigh in with? Is there any truth to the rumor I heard that years ago (before my time FIRST) one or more teams were caught weighing in with "modified" (read hollowed out) batteries?

[ScottM]

I think it's unfortunate that this thread was started. It was up to the robot inspectors to pass or fail this robot and obviously they passed it, because they were allowed to compete. To start a 2nd guessing thread at this point in time won't help anyone and hurts a team that was probably trying to follow all of the rules.

Bottom line - if they had a sticker, they should be allowed to compete. If there was a problem, it should have been challenged on the spot.

Scott

[ChuckDickerson]

It could be.

Personally, I'm wondering just how bad it'd be if teams had to weigh in before each match. Just drop your robot on the scale, make weight, and pick it back up to go onto the field. Probably would take a second scale, though.

FWIW: I really question the calibration of the competition scales sometimes. Last year we weighed in during initial inspection at 19.4 so we added a short piece of 1" x 1/16" wall aluminum box tube just to add a little more protection for our RC. It brought our total weight to 119.8. We never added or subtracted anything else from our robot the entire competition. When we re-weighed in before eliminations the robot was 118.7. Somehow we magically lost over 1 lb. I just can't see how that could have been anything other than the calibration of the scale. The scale was moved from the original inspection area to the queuing area before the start of eliminations. Scales of this precision require extremely good calibration and don't like to be moved. I have also noticed that, believe it or not, how the robot is placed on a scale changes the reading. We have a fairly good scale here at work used by our shipping department. It is probably calibrated once or twice a year. Last year we weighed our robot on it and the weight varied as much as 5 lbs depending on how the robot was placed on the scale.

[GaryVoshol]

Without being too specific (to not id the team), this team was nearly constantly working on their robot in the pits. It could be that some of their modifications during the weekend added weight, without their considering it. I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Teams that make modifications during competitions must re-inspect.

[Dillon Compton]

It could be.

Personally, I'm wondering just how bad it'd be if teams had to weigh in before each match. Just drop your robot on the scale, make weight, and pick it back up to go onto the field. Probably would take a second scale, though.


Considering the rather startling disparity in calibration and sensitivity of scales from regional to regional, this worries me; the addition of adding a second weight in pre match will have 2 potential effects:

1.) The scales match perfectly, the re-weight accomplishes its objective- match resets/changeovers are delayed (although, perhaps NOT if re-weigh was at the last stage of qeue?), and everyone gets to play less matches. We get less for our reg. fees, and everyone goes home a little less satisfied. The spirit of first has taken a hit, and GP is 'enforced'.

2.) the scales dont match, and robots that were inspected at exactly 120lbs go over- robots are unfairly DQed, and arguments ensue; matches are delayed MORE than in case 1, and everyone gets to play even fewer matches. Teams DQed/not allowed to play thanks to a field-scale ruling are dissatisfied, since they already passed inspection once, and 6 hard weeks of work are thrown into the team's collective face, based on what, one would assume, is a minor weight difference between scales.


I DONT see this as viable, and I have a plethora of questions, suggestions, and clarifications that I will be contacting FIRST with if it becomes apparent that pre-match re-weighs will be standard next year.

Sure, the above team was heinously out of line- I've heard other stories about teams putting empty batteries on the robot for weigh in (when batteries were included in bot weight), adding extra motors post weigh in (even, apparently, motors BEYOND what was supplied in KoP), etc...

This means a few things: One. We, as a community, need to encourage EVERYONE to embrace GP- we know it is not all about winning, so let us make sure that everyone knows this. Additionally, take it upon yourselves to bring potential violations first to the team's attention, in a non-aggressive manner ("Hey, did you know that we did not get drill motors in the KoP this year? We've got a spare window motor if you want to swap it out...", etc...), and then to the head inspectors attention ("Hey, team XXXX had a 2004 drill motor on their 'bot- I reminded them it wasnt legal this year and offered them a replacement motor that is legal this year- just wanted to give you the heads up"). Additionally, I would support announcements being made regarding dishonest and illegal behavior prior to the start of selection; I would hope that none of us would choose a robot that had been running an extra motor or 15lbs overweight during alliance pairings, just because they were highly seeded.

This sort of thing is something that we can solve at a community level by doing the best we can do within the rules, and proving to everyone else that it is about the fun, the experience, and the inspiration and enjoyment that all of us students get out of FIRST- not about winning the matches by any means possible.

"Be the change you wish to see"
-Mahatma Ghandi

Lets do this, folks- this is not the place to flame, or to raise questions about other team's dishonest behavior- this is not the arena in which we need to take out our rage or dissapointment- let us just remember to do what we can, and encourage everyone to remember what FIRST strives to be.

To the author of this thread; thank you for bringing this issue to the community's attention, and I would suggest that in the future, if this occurs, you make it known to other teams at the regional, or simply refuse inspection of the robot- no exceptions should be made. Had I been in your situation, I'd have refused it at the "conditional pass" step, methinks; they are rules. We need to follow them, however dissapointing it is, or however bad you feel, telling that robot to loose the 13lbs before comp.


Just my $.02

Dillon Compton
Team 1394

[Biff]

Isn't the reason we now weigh in without the battery because the batteries can vary a pound or more from one to the other and teams were picking their lightest battery to weigh in with? Is there any truth to the rumor I heard that years ago (before my time FIRST) one or more teams were caught weighing in with "modified" (read hollowed out) batteries?
The variance in weight on the batteries is correct our lightest is 13.2 and the heaviest is 15.1 from the days of weighing robot with battery. The other (hollowed battery) has been mentioned before. It may just be an urban legend. Never heard any "facts" one way or another.

[meaubry]

Where do I start - hmmm, lets see -
Inspectors have a very difficult job, and it is compounded by time constraints associated with the way the competition is managed. Thursday is suppose to be practice day and teams are suppose to get through the inspection process before the competition seeding matches begin on Friday, or they are not suppose to be able to participate.
Teams are expected to meeting ALL of the build rules - that is very, very difficult to do for some teams before "the bot goes in the box".
Regardless of the time constraints, the getting ready and making the robot function, I think the expectation is that ALL of the rules are suppose to be met by all participants. I think that there were more than just weight and size concerns
Editorial side note - 1 oz over weight, 1/8 inch outside of the box, ball launchers not covered properly, sharp edges on frames that rip bumper covers from one end to the other. Are all violations looked at with a different measuring stick?? We shouldn't close a blind eye to just one or two - why have the rules if they are subject to opinions instead of consistent validation techniques?

Okay - so now the reality / humanity of the situation comes into play.
Team XX is in trouble right outta the crate - the robots isn't completed yet or its 30 lbs over weight. The team is working off a shoestring budget, have few students and mentors, and they are lucky to even just scrap up enough to show up. They bring very limited tools and even less material. They knew some of the rules but not all of them - they need help.

The inspectors are busy looking around to see "who is in trouble??" - word is quietly passed.
Teams showing GP offer much help and assistance - some ask for help some are asked if they need help.
Thursday practice day passes and some teams don't get a passing grade. They are on the the Friday "hot sheet" - some get conditional passes and are told to fix this or that before competing.
Inspectors run around trying to make sure those with conditional or have not passed inspection DO NOT compete in matches.

Possible process improvements that could be considered -
1) Thursday after lunch or a designated time 2:30pm? - NON-Passed robots list provided to Head Ref. - No practice allowed for robots that have not passed inspection
2) Friday morning - Hot sheet listing all non-passed robots provided to Head Ref. or designee and its used to assure teams that have not passed cannot participate
3) Qualify points for non-passed robots that miss their match should be 0 regardless if they were on the winning alliance and their record should not include wins, losses or ties - if they do not participate in the match.
4) All conditional passes should be approved prior to participation by all teams participating at the event - Conditional approved robot list shared at Drivers meeting and vote by show of hands - thus eliminating any discussion of preferential treatment - lets put GP to a real test.

[Nuttyman54]

wow this is a hot thread

I for one, never understood why teams were allowed to play (practicing is OK) before fully passing inspection, and I think the option to conditionally pass should be excersized only in very odd circumstances.
We were 10 lbs overweight and about an 1/8 of an inch over sized (washers sticking out) on Friday, and we missed the rest of our practice matches to get it legal (we succeeded). Our team makes it a point to get inspected by or shortly after lunch so that we have time to make modifications if necessary and, to my knowledge, have never needed to get conditionally passed.

[Don Wright]

This is unfortunate. However, before we all get worked up in a tizzy, let's take a deep breath and relax...

Rules in FIRST are like laws. They are just design constraints for everyone build their robot to. The honest teams will design and build their robot to meet these requirements just like honest people live by the law. Sure, they might make some mistakes and their shooter might be shooting too fast, or their robot is a little too big or heavy, but they make corrections to follow the rules to make it a fair competition.

I would have to say that most of the FIRST teams fall into this category.

Then there are those that don't follow the rules. Some see how far they can bend them...others flat out break them. Unfortunately, if that is what they want to do, there isn't much we can do. You don't think I can't engineer my expansion with two pin locations...one that is legal, and then one that is extended two or three inches more to give me just a little advantage? Or something I can add and take off quick for added weight...so I get inspected and then throw this extra spike/motor/wire harness on real quick? Or a knob on my control board to control shooter speed so if I get tested, I just turn it down, pass, then crank it back up?

Cheaters are going to cheat. And by implimenting more and more "checks" it is just going to hurt the 90+% (I hope) teams out there that don't cheat, but now have to jump through hoops for three days proving over and over again that they do follow the rules.

Unfortunately, our GP sometimes stops us from maybe doing the only thing we can do to stop this from happening. Calling more teams out if you see them doing something you think is funny (not funny ha ha). But, then again, you don't want to be "that team" that is calling everyone a cheater.

Maybe this team did weigh with the battery. Maybe some of the teams I saw at GLR that shot from the starting position and hit the banners behind the field 3/4 of the way up had a bug in their program and their shooter was malfunctioning. I hope so.

I for one would like to believe that...

[Nuttyman54]

They didn't test our shooter for speed when we were inspected. Albeit, our "shooter" is a bit odd, but it IS a shooter. In fact, I don't know if it was even on the checklist...

[eugenebrooks]

Flat bed scales are notorious for being sensitive to the weight
distribution of the object placed on them. We use a hanging
scale when we weigh our robot, or parts, in the shop. One
gets a much more consistent reading that way.

Eugene



FWIW: I really question the calibration of the competition scales sometimes. Last year we weighed in during initial inspection at 19.4 so we added a short piece of 1" x 1/16" wall aluminum box tube just to add a little more protection for our RC. It brought our total weight to 119.8. We never added or subtracted anything else from our robot the entire competition. When we re-weighed in before eliminations the robot was 118.7. Somehow we magically lost over 1 lb. I just can't see how that could have been anything other than the calibration of the scale. The scale was moved from the original inspection area to the queuing area before the start of eliminations. Scales of this precision require extremely good calibration and don't like to be moved. I have also noticed that, believe it or not, how the robot is placed on a scale changes the reading. We have a fairly good scale here at work used by our shipping department. It is probably calibrated once or twice a year. Last year we weighed our robot on it and the weight varied as much as 5 lbs depending on how the robot was placed on the scale.

[KyleGilbert45]

All this talk about batteries reminds me of this old old old thread.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1144&highlight=Battery+holes

Ahh those were the days.

[Kims Robot]

This thread saddens me...

At FLR this year, we had a bit of trouble with the scales and with our weight, sure it was only 3 lbs, but we had taken 20 off before we shipped... there were very few holes to drill, very little left to take out... We weighed our robot thursday at 7:55pm... it was 1.2lbs overweight. We thought we knew where to take it out, but just for caution's sake, I had the team reweigh right when we got there at 8am... all of a sudden it was 3lb overweight!! Amongst the jokes of our robot eating too many ice cream sundays, we were a bit bewildered, but we were determined.

We pulled off the camera to make weight for our first match(and finally passed inspecition), and then hacked at it until we took 3lb of wire, pieces, holes, bolts etc off... we went back and asked for an official reweigh with the camera on, and made it. After that the inspector thanked me for coming back to reweigh!! Thanked me?!?!?

Thats what saddens me. In FIRST, it used to be that EVERYONE would do that, it wasnt rare, it was honest and expected. There was no guessing, no "I think that equals out." Every team wanted the challenge of meeting all the rules... sure we all grumbled about the scales, or about this or that rule, but in the end, we NEVER tried to skirt any of them especially weight.

FIRST is based on an honor system, its based on GP... we shouldnt have to go to "mandatory weigh ins" for each match, we shouldnt have to "anonymously" turn eachother in... we are all in this together, and there is no reason to try and go around the rules, or beg the inspector to pass you. But maybe thats just my "old age" talking!

::sigh:: Ok I just had to say that...

[Rick TYler]

(...) maybe thats just my "old age" talking!

Heh. I have shoes older than you.

My 2 cents. Sometimes, measuring is a way of keeping honest people honest. The old business term is, "inspect what you expect." A quick weight check in the queue waiting to compete would let teams know if they had a little weight creep. Knowing that this check is coming would help teams focus on weight issues as they tweak and fiddle. I'm not a rules freak here -- if a team weighed a little too much (like 1% over), I would give them a provisional pass on the grounds that they submitted to an official weight check before their next match.

This would require an additional scale, and maybe one additional volunteer, but it would keep the focus on weight during the competition.

Confession: We needed to add a reinforcing bar to the back of Maverick at PNW, and we already knew the bar in question would add 14 ounces to our weight. We pulled a globe motor off and put the bar on, and assumed our weight was still OK. I'm nearly sure we were OK, but we would have taken Maverick to the scales to make sure if we had known there were at least spot checks on weight.

Also, let me join my voice to those that think the specific 13-pound problem way up there could very well have been the battery. I would truly hate to think that someone was just plain old NASCAR cheating.

[Steve W]

I was present at Detroit when this happened. There was no battery on the robot.
I would also like to commend Ron on the way it was handled. He used the only options available at the time to full effect. The problem is that there are no rules about being over weight except that you must meet weight to compete. The team did that before their first elim match. Ron had no other option but to allow them to compete. He did however give a great speech to the team captain and I was sure that they would not compete. Boy I was surprised.

I guess the whole issue is based on GP and what it means to each team and member.There will be many more times that things like this will come up. We need to use this as a reminder that not everyone has bought into this mind set and that we need to lead by example to allow others to learn. We must always follow the rules and make sure that we are accountable to every other FIRST team. We can still change this world one step at a time. Let's start here by looking back at ourselves and see what we can do rather than condemning a team that has slipped a bit.

[GaryVoshol]

Hmmm. Some good points here:
Possible process improvements that could be considered -
1) Thursday after lunch or a designated time 2:30pm? - NON-Passed robots list provided to Head Ref. - No practice allowed for robots that have not passed inspectionThen the afternoon sessions could have caught up on time as we did in the morning sessions - combining 2 practice sessions into one, and still having only 5 bots total on the field!
2) Friday morning - Hot sheet listing all non-passed robots provided to Head Ref. or designee and its used to assure teams that have not passed cannot participateDoes the ref not see the whiteboard at the inspection station?
3) Qualify points for non-passed robots that miss their match should be 0 regardless if they were on the winning alliance and their record should not include wins, losses or ties - if they do not participate in the match.This is particularly interesting, because the team in question benefitted from just such a match - the one in which the 1-on-3 robot won.
4) All conditional passes should be approved prior to participation by all teams participating at the event - Conditional approved robot list shared at Drivers meeting and vote by show of hands - thus eliminating any discussion of preferential treatment - lets put GP to a real test.No. We've seen too many instances where the desire to win has overwhelmed GP. (E.g., Ron's anecdotes about alliances at GLR, when the game scores were possibly mixed up.)

FWIW, another team which was in the top 8 in Detroit (and were picked by a higher seed) came out of the box at 139 lbs Thursday morning. They made weight.

I will agree that inspection is a difficult task. The various inspectors have differing aspects of inspection that are stressed - just as judges have differing opinions on what makes a team a trophy winner. The fact that all teams in the finals must be reinspected says something - that things may have changed since passing inspection.

Would random spot-check inspections throughout the weekend be feasible? Every hour or so a team is chosen at random to be resized or reweighed; maybe another look is taken at electrical, pneumatics, etc. Kinda like the random drug tests for athletes - the theory is that teams will comply because they have the chance of being caught. Whether it is a deliberate breach or an unintentional oversight, teams in error will have to correct their ways.

[TimCraig]

When we would take our sweeper off for finals matches we would add weight but always make sure we didnt go over because we ha pre-made weights that just had to be bolt on. Do you think this is wrong?

If the sum of your robot with the sweeper arm and the weights exceeded the 130 pound limit that was in effect for Stack Attack, I think it violated the rules. As I remember it, if you had interchangable components for your robot, all of them had to be weighed and be within the weight limit. Maybe you didn't think of the weights as "functional" but if they didn't provide some performance, why bolt them on?

[TimCraig]

4) All conditional passes should be approved prior to participation by all teams participating at the event - Conditional approved robot list shared at Drivers meeting and vote by show of hands - thus eliminating any discussion of preferential treatment - lets put GP to a real test.

So robots which don't pass inspection will be passed by a show of hands by the participants? So the popular sacred cow teams would most likely get a pass and the unknowns probably wouldn't?

[meaubry]

So robots which don't pass inspection will be passed by a show of hands by the participants? So the popular sacred cow teams would most likely get a pass and the unknowns probably wouldn't?

That is not what I meant Tim,
It has nothing to do with being popular at all. IF the inspectors find a minor violation that cannot be corrected in time (perhaps the team failed to have a clear view for the refs to see all of the balls at the beginning of the match) - they may have gotten a conditional pass or something minor (that doesn't include being 13 lbs over the limit).

Look everyone - the inspection process with all the various rules is difficult to administer and make everyone happy. There will be times when minor infractions occur and the inspectors need to decide what course of action to take. They can either try and stick to ALL of the rules and upset those that think the inspector MISSED some putting some at a disadvantage in some way, or they can use some judgment as to whether the violation gives the team a competitive advantage. Again gross weight violations like 13 lbs is NOT what I would have considered a conditional pass - and I'm sure the inspectors expected that team to comply.

I'm just afraid that if the inspectors wanted to really crank up the inspection to the finer details that we all think we have done correctly, MANY teams would NOT pass a complete inspection. Over the years we have had many inspections at regional events subsequent to being inspected at previous events where the inspectors at the 2 different events focused on different aspects and from just casually observing the process - there will always be some differences. For everyone in the "strictly follow the rules to the T side of the argument - be careful what you ask for. I'm of the opinion that with so many rules in th rule book now, the HEAD Inspector is the person that should make the call and as long as that person is being consistent to ALL participants and communicating to everyone where, if any conditional boundaries are, that is fair enough for me.

All I suggested is that ALL teams would then be provided an opportunity to object to the boundary conditions and those that violated them would need approval by ALL teams to compete under those conditions OR if ANY team objected, they and ALL others would have to meet the requirements without conditions.

I retract my comment about putting GP to the test - I have thought about it and don't believe that GP is at issue, but perhaps sportsmanship is.

[milliga9]

It was not a battery that caused the weight problem.

I am a teacher for the team that was the first alternate at Detroit and as soon as it became clear that one team was having difficulty making size and weight we were told to be ready to go. We had our bot reweighed and sized and passed our second inspection. Meanwhile the other team was working feverishly to make size and weight. At this point we only told our drive team that another team was having problems making weight and we may be called up.

Of course, the other adult leaders on our team heard what was going on. For them to see another team get into the finals by possible "illegal" means has definitely caused some tension on our team that day. We understand it takes an incredible amount of time and effort to get through the build season and competition, but gracious professionalism still should be our main goal. Think of the teams that played fair and were penalized as a result. If you tried to do something against the rules and get caught, take responsibility for your actions. This is what we try to teach our students, why shouldn't adults who are role models also follow this? I now have to deal with team members saying, "yeah but team ***** did it and got away with it so why can't we?". Is this what FIRST is about today? I personally hope not.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

This thread really stikes at the center of GP and sportsmanship.

All teams make modifications throughout a regional. Things aren't working properly, the game is playing out differently than expected, the robot was damaged and needed repaire, etc. It is up to the team to evaluate whether or not they MAY be in violation of the rules, and to self-govern themselves.

If a team is shown to be in violation of ANY rule then it should be up to the head referee to determine if the intent was to break the rule or an oversight. Most teams (I believe) are honest, and rulings against those should be minimal (comply with the rule before the next match). Gross infractions (13 LBS is 1/10th the allowable robot weight) should be consideration for a DQ from the tournement and possibly further sanctions.

Also, one more thing to consider. By not DQing a team you are sending the message that even if you get caught breaking the rules, no real punishment will happen. Had the team been DQed then ALL teams would now be thinking "Maybe we need to check our weight again, just to be sure".


Inform the teams of the rule. Inform them of the punishment. Enforce the punishment. Send the message that violating the rules will not be tolerated. By sending that message, you will seldom ever have to use the punishment. People (teams) will make a judgement if the punishment is worth breaking the rules, if you prove that there is no punishment (or that punishments wont be enforced) then there is no reason not to break the rules. Therefore the rules MUST be enforced.

The above is (as always) JMHO.

[Ken Loyd]

At the Arizona Regional Team 39 was over the size limit at inspection. Our shooting mechanism was 1/16" over the limit when we rotated it 180'. Some of our students were wondering how 1/16" "could be such a big deal?" By moving a bracket, we were able to be one of the first robots to pass inspection and there appeared to be no effect on the robot. The rules are meant to make the competition fair to all.

Ken

[Tim Delles]

There was no remorse shown for the inspection results. I believe that the only concern shown by the team was that they got caught.


That thier is the part that I am concerned about. the 13 pounds I could see as being the battery, and I wasn't thier so i'm going not going to be the judge and say yeah this is really horrible that a team would do it.

So what I am going to say that is if it wasn't the battery that resulted in the 13 pounds over, then it looks as if this team is in FIRST for the wrong reasons. Yes winning is great and we all love to do it. Not only does it show how good your robot is but it also sparks a little more inspiration in all of the high school students on the team.

But if they had won what then? They had not done it fairly (unless it was the battery). I think this is something that needs to be brought up to FIRST and discussed with them and what should happen.

I really hope that we do not see any more of these threads, because this isn't what FIRST is.

Tim

[Godzilla!]

the 13 pounds I could see as being the battery, and I wasn't thier so i'm going not going to be the judge and say yeah this is really horrible that a team would do it.
.......

So what I am going to say that is if it wasn't the battery that resulted in the 13 pounds over ......
Tim


"I was present at Detroit when this happened. There was no battery on the robot. " Steve W.

[Ken Patton]

sorry I got to this post so late.....

Wow. I am glad this discussion is taking place, but I'm amazed at the amount of speculation from so many people. I think the speculation (and then some responses piled on top) have taken the thread a little off track from where it was headed based on the initial post and some of the great responses.

Some facts from the lead inspector (me):

For those of you who speculated that "maybe it was their battery" please be assured that it was not their battery. They were 13 lbs over without the main battery.

For those who speculated that the scale was out of cal, please be assured that the scale when checked ~6 times over Thurs-Sat was within 0.1 lbs when using 100 lbs of calibration weights. FIRST provides a pretty clear process for doing this, taking into account a number of sources of variation.

For those who have suggested that this team was simply allowed to play while being "out" of inspection, you are incorrect. This team did pass their initial inspection (weight and size), based on two very specific modifications that were required by me. The team actually made one of these changes while the bot was still in the inspection station - it was a 1 minute job. Mentor looked me in the eye and said the other change (identical to the first, another 1 min task) would be made. I passed 'em based on this. Although this was referred to as a "conditional pass" in the original post I think it was actually a "pass" because they met weight and size after making the change.

Changes made following the passing of inspection were the source of the problem here. As was originally stated, there was no remorse from the team. Significant peer pressure was not enough - it took "you won't be able to play" for them to get serious about fixing the problem. This (imo) was not your average inspection/fairplay issue - it was something worse.

Hopefully to get this thread more on track....

The original poster asked for some comments from us.

Team Conduct:
In this case, not-so-subtle peer pressure was directly applied multiple times with no positive result. It took a threat of pulling the inspection sticker. Head Ref described a very specific set of recommendations to the lead student. The team did not follow those recommendations.

How do you think this should be dealt with? Self-enforcement? Peer-pressure? Snitches? Police-state?


Weight Monitoring:
A serious weight gain was detected prior to elims. We do not know how many matches (if any) they ran in an overweight state. We currently depend on teams to monitor their own weight between the time they pass inspection and the time they weigh in for elims.

Do you think we should have more frequent weigh-ins? Should there be a "weigh-in squad" that scours the pits looking for heavy mods being made, and handing out "fix-it tickets" which would suspend a team's inspected status? Should we get FIRST to build scales into the robot starting positions (pleeeease say no to this one :))?

[meaubry]

Ken,
I was hoping you'd jump in - Thanks for clearing all the speculation up.

I agree lets keep this on topic - and if I may add, include ways to improve the process/situation and don't start diverting the thread by challenging the suggestions (some ideas may not always meet with your argeement - that doesn't automatically make them bad ideas, maybe it will spawn a different / better idea)

I think we are all looking for a way to improve the situation - so lets focus this thread on that.

Mike

[Billfred]

Do you think we should have more frequent weigh-ins? Should there be a "weigh-in squad" that scours the pits looking for heavy mods being made, and handing out "fix-it tickets" which would suspend a team's inspected status? Should we get FIRST to build scales into the robot starting positions (pleeeease say no to this one :))?

I dunno, Dave probably already has the scales drawn up in the 2007 field drawings.

But getting back to practical things, I wouldn't take offense if the inspectors announced "Over the course of the qualification matches, at some random point in time, your robot will be checked twice for size, weight, and painfully obvious robot violations by the inspectors." The twice is open for whatever is best for a regional's schedule, staffing, and et cetera. Teams are flagged down after a match and diverted to the inspection station, re-sized, reweighed, and given the once-over for anything obvious, like green neons or big shooters without shielding. Maybe throw in a speed check, just to be sure.

Can it be done? Sure. Will it take an extra inspector or five? Probably so. Is it worth it? I think so--even the teams that do their best to follow the rules might miss something unintentionally, and a second set of eyes wouldn't hurt for that.

[IndySam]

Gracious Professionalism should be the rule. I think we must rely on the honesty of the teams. We should not create a "police state" with random inspections. The completion days are hectic and extremely busy as it is. We can't allow a few bad apples to ruin the game for the rest of us.

The only thing I think should have been done differently (knowing that hindsight is 20/20) is the disqualification of the team. Their lack of remorsefulness should have been their undoing.

BTW I think the inspectors do a great job!

[GaryVoshol]

sorry I got to this post so late.....

Wow. I am glad this discussion is taking place, but I'm amazed at the amount of speculation from so many people.I initially speculated as to how this team might have gotten overweight, and attributed it to inadvertently not paying attention to how their modifications increased their weight. It appears from the posts by Ken and Ron that perhaps they deliberately chose to disregard weight issues.

Changes made following the passing of inspection were the source of the problem here. As was originally stated, there was no remorse from the team. Significant peer pressure was not enough - it took "you won't be able to play" for them to get serious about fixing the problem. This (imo) was not your average inspection/fairplay issue - it was something worse.Do you mean to say this team expected to be allowed to return to the field being oversize and overweight?

How do you think this should be dealt with? Self-enforcement?Preferably yes. I was in Pit Admin at GLR, right across from the inspection station. Teams were coming back to the scales several times during the day on Friday - after all teams had passed inspection - to reweigh or resize. Sometimes we were asked to call Dan on the radio to come back to inspection to check something. Obviously this was all done voluntarily in the spirit of, "If you change something, make sure you are still in spec."

A serious weight gain was detected prior to elims. We do not know how many matches (if any) they ran in an overweight state.Given the schedule, it is probable that the team ran in the "as detected" state for at least their last two matches - a win and a loss. Of course this cannot be verified, it is just further speculation. We can't go back and strip a team of results gained, when we don't know whether they were too heavy or not.

Do you think we should have more frequent weigh-ins? Should there be a "weigh-in squad" that scours the pits looking for heavy mods being made, and handing out "fix-it tickets" which would suspend a team's inspected status? Should we get FIRST to build scales into the robot starting positions (pleeeease say no to this one :))?Given the physical setup at Detroit, it would not have been difficult to randomly choose robots to be diverted from the blue queuing line to the scales or sizing box. That wouldn't have worked at GLR. I don't like the idea of having continuous inspections - I'm sure the inspectors would like it even worse. At GLR at least one team was challenged in the Finals to have the ball shooter speed remeasured - and they passed. I didn't like that situation either - teams should not be placed in the position of challenging their opponents to verify their compliance with the rules.

A roving inspector, checking what teams in the pits were doing, and requiring reinspection? Only if the inspector could remember the configurations of each robot, and make an on-the-spot evaluation of whether there were repairs or upgrades going on. That's unlikely.

Back to the original post -
After a short time period the team reweighed the robot and miraculously now met the weight requirements! As to what they removed I had no idea – could have been weights or the shooter mechanism.One of the things they removed was their polycarb side panels, replacing them with snowfence material. They may have had to remove some functional parts as well. I don't recall what ball-handling devices they had.

When the team finally passed the inspection I asked for the team captain and found he was also the 8’th seed Alliance captain.Mods: If these comments are inappropriate please feel free to remove them. I am trying to be as GP as possible myself given the situation. Hopefully I am contributing some value to the discussion.

The team ended qualifying matches ranked 13th. I think it is safe to say that they achieved that ranking on the strength of their alliance partners in qualifying. (They weren't the only team to benefit from good alliances. In smaller tournaments like Detroit, it happens. There are only so many really good teams, and those lucky enough to be allied with them, rather than against them, come out ahead.) The also happened to benefit from a match in which the official score differed significantly from the real-time scoring system, resulting in a win rather than a loss. In short, this team was lucky to be in the position of choosing an alliance for the finals.

There was no remorse shown for the inspection results. I believe that the only concern shown by the team was that they got caught.And again, this is the troubling aspect. The team should have been aware enough of their situation to check their weight as they made their modifications.

I would be interested to know opinions of the actions taken by this team and was this appropriately handled.I think it was handled as appropriately as possible given the circumstances. It was made known that a team was having problems meeting the inspection, and the top alternate was placed on alert status. It would have been inappropriate to remove the robot from the competition once they were able to pass the inspection - other than the team voluntarily withdrawing. The team was given the benefit of the doubt that the overweight condition was inadvertent.

Should the team have withdrawn? Knowing what I do and reading the opinions of Ken and Ron, I still can't say for sure.

[Peter Matteson]

I have been a big proponent of the "random drug test" method to over weight oversized robots. I believe that an inspector should go pull a random robot off the field at the end of every few matches for at least a weight check. Ever since I started seeing teams intentionally show up 5 lbs heavy for elims back in 03-04 prior to elim reinspection being compulsory. I thought the only way to prevent this was through random inspection. The list could even be generated based on the match list before the event. There is a difference between .25 lb over because of zip ties bolts and splints to repair the bot quickly in the pits and 5 lbs.

[Richard Wallace]

I highly recommend reading 2006 robot inspection rules <R105> through <R110>.

In particular <R110>, which states: FIRST Officials may randomly re-inspect robots participating in competition rounds to assure compliance with the Rules.

Also, as I read <R106> and <R107>, any non-compliance found at inspection or at re-inspection may result in disqualification of the machine at the event.

I conclude from the inspection rules that the sticker itself means nothing -- reinspection can occur at any time, randomly or for suspected cause. Noncomplying machines may be disqualified when the noncompliance is found.

[Uberbots]

Wow i cant beleive in my slyness that i actually thought htis to be a decent strategy... i feel like a bad person now... :(

Anyway, as far as i can see in this discussion, teams that are cheating seem to be a definate problem. Unfortunately, i can see no fair way to solve this problem.
maybe in next years' games, the starting areas double as weight platforms? but then it would be too expensive....
Or how about a better thing... there is an award for the team with the most inspections?


Knowing the game design team, they will probably figure out a way to fix this next year.

[Cuog]

Something that they could do next year is make it so that your robot must be inspected every X matches, they give u a card at the inspection and each round they "punch" it and if the card is no lpnger valid then you can still compete ur just sort of disabled the whole match

[TimCraig]

the HEAD Inspector is the person that should make the call and as long as that person is being consistent to ALL participants and communicating to everyone where, if any conditional boundaries are,

All I suggested is that ALL teams would then be provided an opportunity to object to the boundary conditions and those that violated them would need approval by ALL teams to compete under those conditions OR if ANY team objected, they and ALL others would have to meet the requirements without conditions.


I agree the head referee should be the final arbitor of the rules. If a variance is granted, it should be documented and publicized to the other teams. Teams need to know a variance in the rules has been granted and why. The public disclosure helps keep the officals impartial so that if the don't allow another team the same dispensation, it becomes obvious the offical isn't impartial. I've seen a number of actions by the officials that I consider showing partiality to some teams.

While I would want any variances to the rules publicized, I woudn't want it then put up to a vote or veto by the other teams. There's simply too much team politics to make this fair.

[Tazlikesrobots]

Simple. Put weight sensor pad in the robot start box and have the weight relayed to the scoring table. If a robot is overweight, they got 1 minute to correct the problem or forfeit the match.

As for the robot dimensions, borrow an idea theme parks employ to determine is a rider is tall enough to ride. A t-square for checking the length, width and height of the robot. This could be done while the robot is being placed on the field.

granted this will add to length between matches, but it would insure compliance by everyone.