View Full Version : **FIRST EMAIL**/Multiple Teams at One School
Mark McLeod
28-09-2007, 16:31
Greetings Teams:
In recent years there have been a few occasions where multiple FRC teams ended up working with the same sponsor, fabricator, school and/or mentors. We have received indications that several more teams may be considering similar arrangements for this upcoming competition season. So, before registration opens on Monday, we would like to share the policy regarding such arrangements with you.
We are going to conduct an experiment for 2008. In an intentional effort to minimize the number of regulations governing team operations, we are not going to impose any requirements on the structure or organization of a team, or how multiple teams may interact, collaborate, or coordinate during the build season. Specifically:
* We are not specifying a limit to the number of teams that may be hosted by a school or organization
* Multiple teams supported by the same school or organization may share mentors, facilities, resources and designs, if they so choose
* Students cannot be a member of more than one (1) FRC team
* Teams (whether co-located or not) may collaborate and coordinate their activities to the extent that they choose
* There is no restriction against teams sharing designs and creating identical robots
* There is no restriction against collaborating teams participating at the same event
* Note that the “Rookie Team Criteria” (found here - http://www.usfirst.org/community/frc/content.aspx?id=6632 ) will still apply to all new teams – so any new team starting up at a school with an existing FRC team will be considered a non-rookie (under Rule #1)
We believe that this flexibility in team organization will enable teams to maximize student participation in the FRC program while sharing scarce mentor resources. We hope this will create an environment in which the mentors may have even more success inspiring students on the teams.
At the same time, we are conscious of the concerns that such arrangements may have on the competitions. We will be watching closely during the 2008 competition season to determine the affect, if any, that these arrangements may have on the competitions.
As we said, this is an experiment. There is no guarantee that this policy will remain for future years. We will be soliciting your feedback during and after the season regarding how this policy may improve the FRC experience.
We also want to take this opportunity to thank you, our team mentors. Without your commitment we could not put the FRC program within reach of the students who so strongly want to participate. You are the reason this program is so successful and continues to make the extraordinary impact in the lives of our youth.
Go Teams!
Beth Sweet
28-09-2007, 19:29
Wow, some interesting clarifications! Kudos to FIRST for increased communication on issues that are important to teams!
Jimmy Cao
28-09-2007, 20:55
Sorry if i am misunderstood, but did this change any old rules? Or was it just clearly defining some guidelines?
I do not recall any rules limiting team collaboration.
Thank you,
AdamHeard
28-09-2007, 20:57
* There is no restriction against teams sharing designs and creating identical robots
wow.... and some people thought it would never be said....
sanddrag
28-09-2007, 20:58
Sorry if i am misunderstood, but did this change any old rules? Or was it just clearly defining some guidelines?
I do not recall any rules limiting team collaboration.
Thank you,
The only potential new rule I see here is that students cannot be on multiple teams. I don't recall this specifically being disallowed before.
The only potential new rule I see here is that students cannot be on multiple teams. I don't recall this specifically being disallowed before.
Makes sense. If it wasn't explicitly stated before, it should have been.
Otherwise you could have someone from another team drive or operate your robot.
Makes sense. If it wasn't explicitly stated before, it should have been.
Otherwise you could have someone from another team drive or operate your robot.
...which, alongside using your alliances time-outs on behalf of your competitors, is one of the most frequent things we see lauded by this community as exemplary gracious professionalism. It's not quite commonplace, but I can recall more than a few instances of teams being unable to compete for some reason or another and having another group step in and take the reigns.
It's interesting that those two things are now against the rules -- intentionally or otherwise.
...which, alongside using your alliances time-outs on behalf of your competitors, is one of the most frequent things we see lauded by this community as exemplary gracious professionalism. It's not quite commonplace, but I can recall more than a few instances of teams being unable to compete for some reason or another and having another group step in and take the reigns.
It's interesting that those two things are now against the rules -- intentionally or otherwise.
I understand that point, and I almost put a sidenote into my post regarding an issue where I know it happened before--in 2003 (I think? may have been 04) at SVR a Jewish school could not operate it's robot on Saturday due to the Sabbath. Members from other teams stepped in and became their driveteam for the day.
Things like that are great. I'm all for them.
My point was that there are situations in which it can be bad. Imagine two teams collaborating, either via long distance, or being at the same school. One team has an awesome driver. The other driver is not so good. Without this rule, Driver A could drive Team B's robot, and his or her own robot. That isn't fair.
I understand that point, and I almost put a sidenote into my post regarding an issue where I know it happened before--in 2003 (I think? may have been 04) at SVR a Jewish school could not operate it's robot on Saturday due to the Sabbath. Members from other teams stepped in and became their driveteam for the day.
Things like that are great. I'm all for them.
My point was that there are situations in which it can be bad. Imagine two teams collaborating, either via long distance, or being at the same school. One team has an awesome driver. The other driver is not so good. Without this rule, Driver A could driver Team B's robot, and his or her own robot. That isn't fair.
Yep. I think, more than anything else, it's an example of what sort of situations FIRST gets themselves into by not thinking about how far reaching some of what they say can be. Of course, all of this is based on the speculation that FIRST wants teams helping one another out at any cost -- which may not be the case.
Rich Kressly
28-09-2007, 22:57
...which, alongside using your alliances time-outs on behalf of your competitors, is one of the most frequent things we see lauded by this community as exemplary gracious professionalism. It's not quite commonplace, but I can recall more than a few instances of teams being unable to compete for some reason or another and having another group step in and take the reigns.
It's interesting that those two things are now against the rules -- intentionally or otherwise.
It also happened at the Championship this past year with 177...
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56906
I'd like to think this is entirely unintentional, but under the new rule, this would not be allowed.
artdutra04
29-09-2007, 04:37
It also happened at the Championship this past year with 177...
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56906
I'd like to think this is entirely unintentional, but under the new rule, this would not be allowed.Team 228 won the Sportsmanship Award at the 2007 UTC Connecticut Regional for repairing and driving robots for some of the other teams who had to return home due to the huge blizzard during the regional and were unable to continue competing.
Personally, I was also asked at both the UTC Regional and the Championships in 2007 if I was available to be one of the backup drivers for 177 if they needed it.
Because of the situations like these, I think FIRST should further clarify this new rule about limiting a student to only being a member of one team. Under special circumstances where one team is unable (for reasons beyond their control) have a drive team, having a substitute drive team should be allowed.
Perhaps this can even be clarified by limiting all 'non-team-member' students on the drive team to a maximum of two or three matches; this way, one team cannot use another team's drivers for an entire competition.
GaryVoshol
29-09-2007, 08:09
...which, alongside using your alliances time-outs on behalf of your competitors,
This was never against the rules. What could not be done was back-to-back time outs. Red could always use their time-out for any reason, except if Blue had just used theirs.
I can recall more than a few instances of teams being unable to compete for some reason or another and having another group step in and take the reigns.
It's interesting that those two things are now against the rules -- intentionally or otherwise.
Previously it was implied, but not stated outright, that there could not be substitutes from other teams driving your robot. The definition from game rules is
DRIVER: a pre-college student team member responsible for operating and controlling the
ROBOT. There are two DRIVERS per TEAM.(emphasis mine) The new rule makes it explicit. Whether that's good or bad, I'm not sure. I think it's a case of making a rule to cover a situation - partner teams with co-designed robots, using one set of drivers. But it happens to now disallow an opportunity for gracious professionalism and teamwork (in the broader sense of all FIRST being a team).
This does bring up a question of what it means to be a member of a team. Each team has their own process of going about it. There is no "registration" such as you'd find in a sports league. The only thing close to it is the disclosure form you turn in at a competition, which has your team number on it. Can you switch from one team to another between weeks 1 and 3 of regionals?
Perhaps (once the Q&A forums are open) someone should ask about emergency drive team substitution. For example, "Team A is not able to muster enough people to drive for a short time during a regional due to unforseen circumstances. Teams B and C have spare people. Is Team A allowed to ask Team B and/or Team C for drivers until Team A has enough people present to form a drive team?" (Note: this means that you can't plan to have a short team show up and get help; only in case of something like the situations above can you request the help. Also, if I were FIRST and thinking clearly, I would give a person at the event to contact about who is driving the robot. I would also require that as many as possible be members of the team requesting the extra help.)
If the answer is "No," then there may be cases of good offensive teams being forced to play defense for a time. If the answer is "Yes," then all is well.
I agree that "the emergency drive team substitution" should be brought up in the Q & A. Like at UTC, Chesapeake had school systems recalling teams late Friday morning due to a fun mix of snow and ice. It was wonderful to watch the quick problem solving and the gracious professionalism that went on, as teams stepped in drive robots for teams that had to get back on the bus.
Olde Bill
29-09-2007, 17:13
Doesn't 'over-sharing' of design (identical robots ... ) reduce the inventive/imaginative aspect and learning opportunities which I see as key elements of FIRST? Seasoned teams mentoring rookie team is fantastic but isn't there a limit to the amount of allowed collaboration to maintain a reasonably level playing field?
If memory serves me, at one time, parts manufactured for teams (material & labour) had to be included in the cost. If a student team member was there to watch and learn the labour cost could be excluded. I can appreciate that in some situations (time, location, safety, ...) it is not possible for a student to be present, but, isn't simply displaying the 'manufacturer' as a sponsor a little overboard? Is this not similar to the COTS rule where (purchased) parts must be off-the-shelf and available to all teams?
Billfred
29-09-2007, 17:42
Doesn't 'over-sharing' of design (identical robots ... ) reduce the inventive/imaginative aspect and learning opportunities which I see as key elements of FIRST?
Not according to the judges of the 2007 Palmetto Regional. (1369's efforts with 1902, who were in Las Vegas at the time, received the Judges' Award for their approach to the collaboration, which resulted in a robot completed two weeks early. Nobody ever said that getting done early was bad--there is far more you can learn after fabrication is complete.)
Seasoned teams mentoring rookie team is fantastic but isn't there a limit to the amount of allowed collaboration to maintain a reasonably level playing field?Not any year that I have been involved in FRC.
If memory serves me, at one time, parts manufactured for teams (material & labour) had to be included in the cost. If a student team member was there to watch and learn the labour cost could be excluded.Not quite. From the 2007 manual:
The cost of raw material obtained by a team + the cost of non-team labor expended to have the material processed further. Labor provided by team members and/or by a recognized team sponsor whose employees are members of the team does not have to be included. Note: it is in the best interests of the teams and FIRST to form relationships with as many organizations as possible. Teams are encouraged to be expansive in recruiting and including organizations in their team, as that exposes more people and organizations to FIRST. Recognizing supporting companies as sponsors of, and members in, the team is encouraged - even if the involvement of the sponsor is solely through the donation of fabrication labor.
Example: A team purchases steel bar stock for $10.00 and has it machined by a local machine shop. The machine shop is not considered a team sponsor, but donates two hours of expended labor anyway. The team must include the estimated normal cost of the labor as if it were paid to the machine shop, and add it to the $10.00.
oExample: A team purchases steel bar stock for $10.00 and has it machined by a local machine shop that is a recognized sponsor of the team. The machinists are considered members of the team, so their labor costs do not apply. The total applicable cost for the part would be $10.00.
I can appreciate that in some situations (time, location, safety, ...) it is not possible for a student to be present, but, isn't simply displaying the 'manufacturer' as a sponsor a little overboard? Is this not similar to the COTS rule where (purchased) parts must be off-the-shelf and available to all teams?I don't quite follow this one, so I can't quite rebut. Perhaps you could clarify things a bit?
Doesn't 'over-sharing' of design (identical robots ... ) reduce the inventive/imaginative aspect and learning opportunities which I see as key elements of FIRST? Seasoned teams mentoring rookie team is fantastic but isn't there a limit to the amount of allowed collaboration to maintain a reasonably level playing field? If you would like to start a collaboration debate, search first. It's a long-dead horse.
If memory serves me, at one time, parts manufactured for teams (material & labour) had to be included in the cost. If a student team member was there to watch and learn the labour cost could be excluded. There is no requirement that students even be involved in fabrication. IN THEORY (not that I reccommend this; in fact, I would call FIRST's official attention to this if I became aware of a confirmed case), it is possible for the students not to see the robot (or design) until Thursday of their first regional. (I don't know of a single case of this happening.)
I can appreciate that in some situations (time, location, safety, ...) it is not possible for a student to be present, but, isn't simply displaying the 'manufacturer' as a sponsor a little overboard? Is this not similar to the COTS rule where (purchased) parts must be off-the-shelf and available to all teams?If a part isn't COTS, COTS rules don't apply. Custom part rules do. Again, if the team chooses to count the maker of a part as a sponsor and to do so does not violate team sponsorship guidelines (or FIRST sponsorship guidelines), I see no problem with not involving students, although if possible students should be involved.
I'm a big fan of limited official rulings, particularly in regards to team operations, by FIRST. I'm glad they've stated that them selves.
As for teams offering to drive for other teams or loan team members in extreme cases, like emergencies or to keep religious obligations, I am in favor of event staff making the call. The people on the ground are the ones who can best weigh the implications and decide if something is being done out of GP or not. There are occasions were it is appropriate and when it is not, and there is no way to foresee which is which before hand. It's a decision best left to the referee staff on an as needed basis.
-Andy A.
Bill Moore
01-11-2007, 07:21
Doesn't 'over-sharing' of design (identical robots ... ) reduce the inventive/imaginative aspect and learning opportunities which I see as key elements of FIRST? Seasoned teams mentoring rookie team is fantastic but isn't there a limit to the amount of allowed collaboration to maintain a reasonably level playing field?
If you would like to start a collaboration debate, search first. It's a long-dead horse.
There are no "long-dead horses" on Chief Delphi, only "sleeping" ones. This one appears about ready to awaken. ;)
Daniel_LaFleur
01-11-2007, 08:06
I'm a big fan of limited official rulings, particularly in regards to team operations, by FIRST. I'm glad they've stated that them selves.
As for teams offering to drive for other teams or loan team members in extreme cases, like emergencies or to keep religious obligations, I am in favor of event staff making the call. The people on the ground are the ones who can best weigh the implications and decide if something is being done out of GP or not. There are occasions were it is appropriate and when it is not, and there is no way to foresee which is which before hand. It's a decision best left to the referee staff on an as needed basis.
-Andy A.
Oh, how I so completely agree with you.
While I like the idea of team members only being on one team, I believe that in the siprit of gracious professionalism we should allow for exceptions on a case-by-case situation, with the head referee of that regional as the final arbitrator. This should satisfy both the 'conflict-of-interest' and 'gracious professionalism' arguments.
Tristan Lall
01-11-2007, 10:17
While I like the idea of team members only being on one team, I believe that in the siprit of gracious professionalism we should allow for exceptions on a case-by-case situation, with the head referee of that regional as the final arbitrator. This should satisfy both the 'conflict-of-interest' and 'gracious professionalism' arguments.Your point is well-taken, however your choice of the head referee as the final arbiter might pose a problem. After all, it's not a question of gameplay, except in the specific situation where the team members in question act for both teams as part of their drive teams. Also, it's not a "rule", but rather a decree by FIRST (which can be looked upon as a condition of participation, which is something usually addressed by event organizing staff). Absent a rule (in "The Game" or "The Tournament") which covers this situation, there's no game-related penalty available to the officials (and officials rightly don't want to be accused of making up a penalty).
I think you could easily make a case that it's the regional director's call, just as it might be if a team refused to extinguish open flames in the pit, or was creating a disturbance in the stands.
Since regional directors and head referees occasionally disagree, it would be wise to establish who has the final word.
Since regional directors and head referees occasionally disagree, it would be wise to establish who has the final word.
You're right. FIRST should decide who makes the call, and that should be a person who's responsibilities best fit the task. The director is about as good a choice as I can think of. I only thought of the Head Ref because thats often the most authoritative person readily apparent to team members. I've never spoken to or always been aware of who the regional director is, but the head ref is always by the field and can always be flagged down. The head ref can also be depended on to know the rules well.
-Andy A.
Kevin Kolodziej
03-11-2007, 21:57
OK, I'll bite.
What is so bad about a student being a member of two teams? Take the driver position out of the equation. If a student is able to be part of two teams (two teams at one school is the likely scenario, but I can think of situations where a student could have the opportunity to be on two teams at separate schools), why specifically is this "bad"? Wouldn't the student have the opportunity for twice the inspiration? What am I missing?
We have mentors that are members of multiple teams (the Martian mentors even have dual shirts!) - is FIRST going to disallow this in the future?
I suppose that the logistics of being a full fledged member of two teams might be pretty difficult unless those two teams act as one in all aspects - robot design, scouting, etc (animation, chairman's, and other types of activities would be the only distinct areas). But what if a team suddenly had a lot of extra cash and decided that they wanted to enter two robots themselves? To do so, a new team has to be created. This rule would prevent this unless they are able to come up with 3 new students (for a new drive team) - which shouldn't be hard, but work with me on this.
I'm not saying I disagree with the rule....I'm just wondering why it has to be a rule in the first place.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.