Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question

[Don Wright]

I just have a general question.

We (469) are very strict when we design and make our robots to make sure we follow each and every rule to the letter.

However, it gets interesting when we go to competitions and we very clearly see robots (even by very well known and admired teams) that violate this rule. Most of the time it's rules that really don't have an affect on the game play. For example, from the rules this year:

<R7> F. The fabric covering the BUMPERS must be solid red or solid blue in color. Visually, the red or blue must be as close to the corresponding color in the FIRST logo as reasonable (i.e. to a reasonably astute observer, they appear similar). The only markings permitted on the BUMPER fabric cover are the team number (see Rule <R15>).

This year it was particularly difficult to display team name, sponsors, etc other than the top of the robot. In the past, we have made our bumpers with our team name, sponsors, etc. However, we followed it to the letter this year and just had our team number on it.

But, at all the competitions we went to, we saw teams with their team name, sometimes even with sponsors on it. Yes, this doesn't hurt or affect the game play, but, it is a clear violation.

So...when can you ignore a rule? When should you say something? What is the general consensus?

For example (not to point out a team in particular, but it's a good example of a very good and respected team with their team name and number on the bumper):

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/35688?

[Chris is me]

My take to the rules is that they are there for your own use and your own robot. Following the rules to the letter is its own reward as you blaze through inspection and know in the end of the day you passed with a clean robot.

It's often unfair to see other robots that break multiple rules that eventually get through inspection without all of them corrected - and that sucks that they got away with it - but having it any other way wouldn't be very inspirational to the students on that team...

In the particular example above, I think that the rule is not "okay" to ignore, but if people missed it, it's not exactly a big deal at all. It's just words.

[gvarndell]

We (469) are very strict when we design and make our robots to make sure we follow each and every rule to the letter.

Sorry, my intent is not hijack your thread.
I just wanted to say that, given the machine you guys fielded this year, that almost seems like a too modest statement. :D

[Yoel2630]

Our team(2630) discussed this matter in the past. And we strongly believe that you must stick to the rules. Most rules have good reasons, and we may question some of them and try to change them, but we will respect the official rules.
It's a competition, and as professionals we can't break the rules.
It's also kind of a mission to set an example to others.The fact is, when you look at great teams that succeeded(doesn't have to be a winner, but as a well formed team that enjoys it self and does there best) , you realize that it's a lot more satisfying to achieve things in the legal method.

I'm not sure how it goes in the USA but I'm sure it's not that different.
When you look at the road, you may notice a lot of illegal things that people do. One of the more common ones iv'e seen and upsetting one is that people don't fully stop for a stop signs, they will slow down enough not to cause any danger but, a lot won't fully stop. I think that people bending this rule isn't that bad, but when you later see people passing speed limits you understand that bending rules isn't okay, because not everybody is fully capable of doing it in a logical way. Therefore, sticking to the rules must be done any where, you get used to it eventually.

To conclude, I think the mentors on the team should push the kids to knowing the manual perfectly, we have a kid on the team, that his job is to know the manual, and we use him a lot. (we all read it, but he's the expert)

please excuse me for any mistakes or wrong use of term. My native language is Hebrew.

And off the record, I've broken rules in my life,not perfect,sorry. But I truly believe these times didn't harm or effect anyone in a bad manner. But when it comes to FIRST,you must stick to the rules.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Yoel,
Very well stated, and I fully agree.
From an inspection standpoint, you as team mentors and students need to know that our responsibility is to help you by making all robots compliant. It is what is fair for you in competition and what helps the students realize that there are specification and design reviews in the professional arena. As hard as the inspection team tries, some things are missed during inspections. The example you linked to Don, is one of those things that should have been caught in inspections. It may have been and the regional inspection team and other staff may have approached the team. In this picture, it is easy to see the team name is painted in place. What could be the immediate fix for this? A piece of blue fabric, some tape, or something more ugly like paint remover? It is possible that the decision to let them play for that event and correct the problem prior to their next event was made.
I would like to make a request now that any experienced mentor who works on a robot, think about volunteering for inspections next year. Many of the regionals have to rely on other volunteers to help fill out the inspection staff. Although they are good and dedicated alternatives, some may not work on a robot. By having experienced mentors, we start with someone who is already familiar with the robot rules and what components look like when assembled. These people may not be totally sure if a particular item is legal or not, but they can recognize something that is out of the ordinary and bring it to the attention of the LRI. I and all the other LRIs depend on our staff to be our eyes in the pits. The more trained the eye, the better the compliance.
I don't want teams to fear the inspection process but they should be happy that all robots are held to the same standard and not worry that some team has an advantage because an inspector missed something.

[JesseK]

If the inspector passed it as a compromise, then let it live.

It's easy to forget that teams are comprised of humans who proficiently err by overlooking a couple of the 1000+ details in the rules. Over the course of a team's history, I seriously doubt any team is immune to that type of error. From my experience, inspectors are there to not only ensure a robot is safe and ensure it's within the rules, but also assist a team in correcting errors. If the error is practically not correctable by the time Qualifications start and the error doesn't effect game play or safety then why should we, the other teams, complain and try to deny the reward to all of the rest of the hard work that the offending team did?

To further the point, I'll stir the pot a bit. There are teams that use the same exact custom-milled parts year to year, with no change in dimensions or material whatsoever (even an admittance here on CD that there's no point in even re-creating the CAD or g-code for the parts). While this tends to more grossly effect play (more time to focus on other things), if the judges/inspectors/etc have ignored it over the years then there's not much we can really do. Our time is really better spent focusing on our own teams' efforts.

[JaneYoung]

We had some beautiful work done on our bumpers, screen printing the numbers - and - the team name. A lot of work went into getting everything lined up perfectly before submitting the fabric to the company for screen printing. When the fabric was given to me to make the bumpers, the mistake was realized and the decision made to cut off the team name and replace it with plain fabric. The bumpers were finished with just the team number on it.

If the rule is written - read it, learn it, follow it, and fix it when you are not in compliance. If the team overlooks or misses the rule, fix it when it is pointed out to you and you are not in compliance. There's a lot about these robotics competitions that creates opportunities for individuals, teams, event organizers, and those responsible for the program - to hold themselves accountable. It is a definite move in the positive direction of driving culture change for the better.

--
Side note - we had drawn up a design for making a cover with the second color but I ordered an AndyMark skirt on the side - just in case. The AndyMark skirt was the one that was screen printed and used in Dallas. (Fabric was sewn over the team name to cover it on the skirt leaving only the team numbers.) Somehow, between Dallas and Lone Star, it got 'lost' and when the team uncrated in Lone Star, there was no bumper cover. A team member and a parent made a mad dash for fabric and paint and made a bumper cover from scratch with the use of a sewing machine at a relative's house somewhere in the Houston area. It worked out but was a fun challenge for the them.

Jane

[Peter Matteson]

Don,
You summed up a conversation that my team has every year. We follow a rule exactly the way it is written even if it is our to our own detriment. We make a point every year to teach this to the new kids on the team.

Without fail every year I see teams that clearly don't follow rules and in some cases get rewarded for it. There always seems to be a few rules that teams just ignore and get away with. I'll leave it at that.

At the same time, when inspecting, I have seen teams that miss something simple that doesn't effect the robot's performance like using green wire for negative wiring because it's what they had. I hated telling them they had to re-wire the negative on their robot, but they realized they made a mistake and fixed it. These don't bother me that much, it the ones where an advantage is gained that bother me.

[Carolyn_Grace]

<R7> F. The fabric covering the BUMPERS must be solid red or solid blue in color. Visually, the red or blue must be as close to the corresponding color in the FIRST logo as reasonable (i.e. to a reasonably astute observer, they appear similar). The only markings permitted on the BUMPER fabric cover are the team number (see Rule <R15>).


I did not pay as much attention to the markings on the bumpers so much as what color the bumpers were! It bothered me that there were teams with light blue bumpers or very dark blue bumpers and almost orange or maroon for the red.

Of course, this is nit-picky of me to be concerned with it, but it is annoying when our team has always made it a point to create a bee-utiful bot, down to the bumpers that we create, and this year we had to sacrifice a bit of our black and yellow (with a touch of purple and green) to go with the blue and red bumpers like everyone else.

Perhaps because this is just the first year for specified bumper colors they were a bit lax on the rule, and maybe they'll be more strict next year. After all, how a robot looks doesn't affect the game play, and inspectors should be more concerned with things that will affect how a robot performs.

[Madison]

For what it's worth, we absolutely had no intent to ignore or break any rule and are fortunate that the people in Oregon and Seattle worked with us to let this mistake slide. Simply, I didn't read the bumper rules well enough and overlooked the restrictions on content.

Interestingly, we must've painted those bumpers three or four times to get them to look decent. They're not even good.

The inspectors in Oregon pointed out our error and showed us the rule we violated. We were prepared to to replace the fabric or strip the paint off again, but they were understanding about it and let it slide with the caveat that, should we attend the Championship, we'd need to be in compliance.

I hope that other teams were not annoyed by this transgression or by the leniency we were shown and can assure everyone that we don't expect to get away with anything, ever. It's flattering that someone would ever think of us as very good or respected, as we work very hard at being the best we can be. This time, we screwed up. I screwed up and I'm upset that it reflects poorly on my team. In retrospect, despite our inspector's generosity, we should have changed the bumpers anyway.

Sorry, guys. We'll be better.

[Jack Jones]

To abide by the rules, or not to abide: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous inspection,
Or to take arms against a sea of rules,
And by opposing end them?
...
Be all my sins remember'd.

IMO - No Pass - No Play - No Exceptions!

[IKE]

<R15> Teams shall display their team number on the BUMPERS in four
locations at approximately 90-degree intervals around the perimeter of the ROBOT. The numerals must be at least 4 inches high, at least in ¾-inch stroke width and in a contrasting color from its background. Team Numbers must be clearly visible from a distance of not less than 100 feet, so that judges, referees, and announcers can easily identify competing ROBOTS.

So, we used "2" colors for our numbers. We spent a great deal of time looking at fonts and and different color schemes in order to make sure the numbers "popped" and were able to be clearly distinguishable from 100 feet. We also wanted them to match our team fonts and imagery. In order to get the font we wanted with the outline on proper character height without it curling over the edges and loosing readability, we cheated. The yellow portion of the font was 5/8" thick in spots. The black outline reaches the 3/4" width in most places. Even with this thinner font, our numbers were quite legible from the top of the stand at the championship. Other teams that followed the letter of the rule and used "a color" namely black on dark navy or dark red, were often nearly illegible from around 20 feet. As a scout, I would like to thank the teams that broke the rules and added a white outline to their black numbers. That was a huge help. Some "legal" bumpers were almost as bad as trying to read numbers on the FIRST screens (seriouly FIRST, you couldn't pick a worse font for distinguishing 2s, 3s, 5s, 6s, 8s, and 9s. Even the 1s&7s are almost impossible to distinguish).

We felt the "intent" of this rule was to have easy to read numbers and thus we were OK with "cheating". We did have a yellow paint pen on hand just in case we were asked told we were not in compliance. Hopefully the inspection crews at the off-season events are OK with this.

P.S. Print your numbers to scale on Red and Blue background, and then pace off at least 30 steps. If you can't read them, then you really should fix them.

[Jon Stratis]

As others have said, every team should focus on the rules during build, and do their best to ensure every one of them is met.

That being said, we're all human. Sometimes we miss something. When you get to competition, I would urge everyone (except the inspectors!) to take a small step back from the rules. If you see someone violating a rule in a way that doesn't affect game play, why bother making a fuss about it? It's only going to make both parties look bad. On the other hand, if you see a team with 10 CIM's on their robot, it could be great to send a few people over to help them fix the problem.

So in short, follow the rules in your build space as best you can, and let the inspectors handle the rules at competition - you don't need to be policing every other team there.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

In order to get the font we wanted with the outline on proper character height without it curling over the edges and loosing readability, we cheated. The yellow portion of the font was 5/8" thick in spots. The black outline reaches the 3/4" width in most places. Even with this thinner font, our numbers were quite legible from the top of the stand at the championship. ...
As a scout, I would like to thank the teams that broke the rules and added a white outline to their black numbers.

The GDC did allow outlines late in the competition season...
From 3/16/2010 answer in the Q&A...
Rule <R15> requires that the body of the number (the part that is ≥4 inches tall and with ≥3/4 inch stroke width) be of "a" (single) contrasting color. Adding small borders of a highly contrasting color around the external perimeter of the number for the purposes of increasing the contrast and clarity of the number would not violate the rule, as long as the addition of the contrasting border does not reduce the size or stroke width of the body of the number.

[Ken Streeter]

I just have a general question.

We (469) are very strict when we design and make our robots to make sure we follow each and every rule to the letter.

Personally, I find the issue of "rules enforcement" to also be very frustrating at times.

This thread has kind of focused upon the specific issue of the bumpers that you mentioned, but for me (and, I speculate for you, as I think you were just using the bumpers as a benign example) the real issues of your question have to do with whether or not a team chooses to follow rules that may or may not end up being enforced at tournaments but which DO have a MAJOR impact on competitiveness. For more years than not, our team has had to specifically grapple with limiting our robot design in order to ensure rule compliance, knowing that if we didn't limit our robot design in that way, we could have a much better robot. After making such design limitations, it is extremely frustrating (and often even unfair) to observe other robots on the field that did not make these robot design limitations but are subsequently allowed to regularly break the rules as written while gaining what is often a very significant competitive advantage from doing so.

For us, in 2007, the big rule along these lines was remaining within the robot volume requirement. In order to have an arm design which was guaranteed to always remain within the volume requirement yet still be able to reach all three levels of the rack, we went to a three-jointed arm which could be guaranteed to always comply with the rules. However, that year, about 25% to 50% of the robots we saw regularly violated the rule during matches. Our robot ended up being too complicated to really work, while simpler designs that we discarded because of robot volume rules were very successfully used by other teams, despite the fact that they regularly exceeded the robot volume but received no penalties since the rule was nearly impossible for referees to enforce. My complaint for the rule problem that year rests not primarily with the inspection committees or the referees, but for the GDC in writing rules which would end up being nearly unenforceable, or instituting game penalties which require the referees to have to make highly subjective judgment determinations multiple times every match.

In 2006, the regularly debated hard-to-enforce rule was the maximum ball velocity limitation.

In 2008, the hard-to-enforce or at least inconsistently enforced rule was the "interfering with a hurdler" rule. In order to make the right design tradeoffs, knowing whether or not such rules will be enforced is very important. If hurdlers are granted almost no protection in that zone, it makes the relative importance of running laps much more significant, making a lap-bot more competitive. However, if the hurdlers are granted essentially "no contact" protection in the hurdling zone, a lap-bot will have to be very careful to watch out for hurdlers in that zone and will thus need to expect to complete less laps during a match. The "crossing backwards over a line" penalty was similarly frustrating.

In 2009, I was VERY PLEASED that the game featured almost no "subjective penalties" -- with the removal of penalties for pinning, ramming, and no common game-related penalties, I don't recall as much debate over rules-related issues. (I may be forgetting something here; if I have, please chime in!) In general, I would like to commend the GDC for coming up with a set of game rules in 2009 that didn't have subjective penalties or hard-to-enforce rules.

In 2010, however, there were multiple rules that were in the category of "subjective enforcement" that greatly impacted our robot design. The most significant of these, however, was G43 that "ROBOTS may POSSESS only one BALL at a time. Violation: PENALTY." Initially, knowing that ball possession would be one of the keys to this years game, we wanted to maximize opportunities for ball possession by having a very wide ball possessing system. Such a system could accidentally or unintentionally possess more than one ball at a time. We had the debate about how strictly this rule would be interpreted -- would a robot that *could* possess more than one ball at a time be deemed illegal? Would the "two ball possession" be given an "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" perspective, or would it be the case that if the referee wasn't sure whether or not two balls were being possessed, the team would be given a penalty -- ie, was it the team's responsibility to ensure that it was abundantly clear to the referees that the robot was not possessing two balls?

To get down to details, we weren't sure whether we could make a ball-possession mechanism that stretched across an entire side of the robot, or did we need to make it narrow enough such that it couldn't possibly possess two balls at once? Would a "software solution" be sufficient where we could have a split-roller from side-to-side, and turn off one side when the other side had a ball in it? We considered and discussed such options.

Then, when Team Update 2 came out, the GDC added an explanatory box to the rules stating "It is important to design your ROBOT so that it is impossible to inadvertently or intentionally POSSESS more than one BALL at a time." Furthermore, it said, "Since referees may find it difficult to determine if additional BALLS in contact with the ROBOT are being herded or POSSESSED, it is imperative that teams avoid ambiguity."

This made it sound to us that it was the team's responsibility to actively demonstrate compliance with this rule -- if the referee wasn't sure whether or not multiple balls were being possessed, a penalty would be called, as it was the team's responsibility to avoid ambiguity. As a result, we designed ball possession mechanisms which could not possibly possess two balls. We explicitly discarded simpler, more effective mechanisms which would be ambiguous as to whether or not multiple balls were being herded or possessed.

In this year's game, having a 20-inch wide ball acquisition / possession mechanism which can accidentally or unintentionally possess two balls is a HUGE ADVANTAGE over an 8-inch wide ball acquisition / possession mechanism for which it would be "impossible to inadvertently or intentionally possess more than one ball at a time."

Jumping to the end of the story, there were at least four robots in the elimination matches on Archimedes which regularly (an average of at least once per match) possessed more than one ball at a time. Some of these teams would immediately release the possessed balls when this happened. Others would go ahead and possess both balls. In the matches I watched on Archimedes (which was admittedly only a few matches), I saw many occurrences of multiple ball possession, at a significant game advantage, yet saw no penalties called in any of those cases. This gave a significant competitive advantage to the offending robots.

However, my frustration is not with the referees as much as with the game designers. It was clear to our team from our initial reading of the rules that G43 would be very hard to enforce, nearly impossible to enforce consistently, and that the specific degree of enforcement implemented would have a significant effect upon game play and match outcome. I would highly encourage the GDC to work very hard to implement games where the referees are not given the impossible task of having to try to enforce such rules.

I've rambled on a long time; maybe I should step off the soapbox now and let somebody else have a turn...

PS: G45 is another rule where the referees had to make such a judgment call. 469's primary robot strategy would succeed / fail depending upon the interpretation of that rule. I believe that despite being under intense scrutiny, 469 stayed on the legal side of that line. However, their success points out that it is extremely important to teams designing robots to know where these regulatory lines are drawn, as the success / failure of a robot strategy is often highly dependent upon the exact rulings that will be made. Often times, there is a huge advantage in being able to come up right to the border of rule legality (without stepping over) as contrasted to instead choosing a design which stays well back from the border of rule legality. It is extremely frustrating to teams to make a design to come up right to the edge of the written rules (but no farther) and then to see other teams that stepped completely over the written rule, enjoying a significant competitive advantage because of their transgression.

[Radical Pi]

I'd like to bring up G46 from this year as an example of this. At FLR (pre update 16) there was a fair number of bots that would get multiple G46 penalties in one match because they didn't have have anything to prevent it from happening. And then there were the teams that had paid attention to the rule and never got the penalty (or only in very unlikely situations) that were rewarded with better scores. Then update 16 is released and it nearly makes this legal as long as you are trying to get rid of it. I feel like if any modification was needed, it should have not protected teams that barely stopped the ball from entering.

[Cory]

The bumper color thing really bothered me. There was one team I saw with black bumpers. Black is clearly neither blue, nor red. They also had similarly dark numbers painted on them.

[Mr. Van]

So, what happens when the rules change? In mid season?

For me, I believe the issue became most obvious this year with the 3" ball penetration rule.

Many teams that designed high chassis robots to go over the bump had difficulty keeping balls out from under them. Instead of having to make a choice based on their design (penalties vs. bump traversing) these teams found their problem solved - by a rule change. (In most of these cases, a bar could have been placed below the chassis that would keep a ball from going under the robot, but it would have prevented bump traversing.)

The update (after week 1) made it completely legal to DRIVE OVER A BALL. In fact, many teams that had worked (to varying degrees of success) at keeping balls from going under their robots removed any devices that were designed to do this at subsequent regionals.

Essentially teams that managed to successfully overcome the challenge of going over the bump without allowing balls to go under their robot found that their efforts were wasted. In fact, their design may now be at a disadvantage because they can't simply drive over a ball that may be in their way preventing a maneuver.

There were solutions to the bump vs. 3" problem with the rules as written and many teams did develop and execute these solutions. Why would FIRST seem to say "this problem is too hard, so we're going to remove it from the challenge"?

So, because so many teams ignored a rule (or were unsuccessful in following it) FIRST said it was going to modify the rule.

This issue is of course complicated by selective enforcement of rules at events.

-Mr. Van
Robodox

[ChuckDickerson]

FIRST is supposed to be a microcosm of the real world so read the “rules” more like “customer design specifications”. If a customer asks you to build a part that must fit in a particular space then it must fit in that space. If it has to weigh no more than so much it has to weigh no more than that, period. The sizing box and scale are the easy ones but every year plenty of teams still show up at competition that don’t fit and are over weight. That won’t fly in the real world. You can’t deliver a part to a customer and say “Yeah, we know it doesn’t fit and is too heavy but it’s close so will you still pay us?”

Read every single word of the “customer design specifications” carefully and fully understand them before you start designing and building anything. Don’t assume that new customer’s design specifications (this year’s “rules”) are the same as the last customer’s needs (last years “rules”) even if the customer is the same and they are asking you to build a similar part (let’s say bumpers to continue this example). If everyone would do this then the inspector’s job would be easy and there really should be no need for inspectors by the time you get to the Championships. Trust me the inspectors job is anything but easy and there are PLENTY of robots at the Championships that somehow passed inspection at one or often times more than one regional but aren’t legal when they uncrate at the big show. If an inspector lets you slide on this rule or that rule at your early regional(s) they aren’t doing you or any or your future alliance partners any favors because sooner or later you and some random alliance partners are going to pay the price when you don’t make a match due to not passing inspection further down the road.

We all know there are always rules that don’t exactly make any competitive difference like the “only team numbers on the bumpers rule” but those are the customer design specifications so that should be the way they are done. The FIRST GDC spent almost 3 pages on the bumpers for a reason. They wanted them a certain way so we should all build them as such. It is perfectly clear at the inspection station which teams actually read the bumper rules and included them I their early design process and which teams left them as a complete after thought and just slapped something on there whether or not it was even close to being legal. Folks, I’m pretty sure bumpers are here to stay. Include them in your design process from the beginning. Don’t leave them as a week 6 afterthought. The number one problem delaying the inspection process this year was bumpers.

Wire color also comes to mind as something that on an individual robot basis probably makes no difference, however, if the customer design specifications require purple and yellow wire you better not deliver a part with pink and green wire or you won’t get paid.

Does it really matter if your school name/organization and sponsor logos aren’t proudly displayed on your machine? Probably not in terms of field play but besides the fact that we should all be proud of our teams and schools and we owe it to our sponsors the recognize them the customer design specifications call for them to be displayed on the robot so, yep, they better be there. Consider that some of the rules that we think are “useless” and “silly” may just be sprinkled in among the others by the GDC to keep us on our toes.

I HIGHLY recommend that more experienced team mentors follow Al’s advice and volunteer next year as inspectors at the competitions. You will gain tremendous insight into the process and it can really only help your own team in the long run to have an experienced inspector mentoring your team. They will be forced to know and follow the rules to the letter. It also elevates the whole level of play when all teams are held to the same high standards.

Teams should not fear the inspectors and the inspection process. They should welcome it and enjoy it as if they are showing of their creation to someone who is truly interested in the intricate details of how it works. Teams should build their machines in HOPES of being the first one inspected, as the model to follow, and as the machine used to train all the rookie inspectors on what it looks like when the rules are followed to the letter. The inspectors are your friends, not the bad guys. Also keep in mind that if you are having problems don’t be afraid to go to the inspectors for help. They will do their best to get you connected to whatever resource you are in need of to solve your problem.

So finally, YES, read the rules, know the rules and then follow the rules to the letter. If you see something at a competition that you feel doesn’t follow the rules and especially if it is giving another team an unfair advantage on the field it is your right to point it out to the LRI. Be polite, not petty and trite, and have a copy of the specific rule handy if possible. The inspectors always want to see all the teams make their matches but ultimately it is their job to enforce the rules fairly and evenly as best as they can. Please keep in mind though that teams have weeks to design and build their machines where inspectors have mere minutes to try to catch any infraction on dozens of machines they have never seen before. Everyone makes mistakes.

[Ken Streeter]

However, it gets interesting when we go to competitions and we very clearly see robots (even by very well known and admired teams) that violate this rule. ...

So...when can you ignore a rule? When should you say something? What is the general consensus?

I just realized when re-reading the original post, that because of the fact that the thread title touched a nerve for me with one of my rules-related complaints, I posted a lengthy follow-up about rules enforcement, but went a bit off-topic.

Upon re-reading the original posting, it seems the original poster may have instead been seeking the collective opinion of CD readers of what a team should do when they observe another team who is violating a rule.

If that is the correct intent of the original poster's question, then that is a *hard* question. There are lots of aspects to the matter.

In general, if I see another team committing a rule violation, I would like for my first action to be to inform the other team of the violation in case they are unaware that they are doing anything wrong. For most rule violations in FIRST, I think the offending team simply being unaware of the problem is the most common issue. Helping to show the offending team that they are breaking a rule is probably sufficient in the majority of the cases. Usually, after the team realizes they are violating a rule, they'll work on their own to remedy the problem.

For teams that we have an ongoing familiarity or relationship with, letting them know that they are breaking a rule is relatively easy and not too uncomfortable. However, for teams one doesn't know, this can be a very awkward situation -- it's not easy to go up to somebody on a team that you've never talked to before and say something like "Hi, I'm Ken Streeter from team 1519. While watching your robot in the last match, I saw that you're regularly possessing two balls, but that's against the rules." Such a conversation isn't the easiest of ways to get to meet somebody! I don't think I've ever had to do that in FIRST before, so I can't provide much practical experience. However, I think that we do have a responsibility to let teams know when they have unintentionally broken the rules.

The really complicated issue comes up when you do let the team know that they are breaking the rules, but they aren't doing anything about it. Instead of fixing the problem, they either deny that they are breaking the rule or instead simply let the problem persist. I'm curious to hear what others have to advise about such circumstances...

[Vikesrock]

The really complicated issue comes up when you do let the team know that they are breaking the rules, but they aren't doing anything about it. Instead of fixing the problem, they either deny that they are breaking the rule or instead simply let the problem persist. I'm curious to hear what others have to advise about such circumstances...

Go directly to the Head Ref or LRI as appropriate. By approaching the team first you have given them a chance to correct an accidental violation. Not fixing this issue either means that they do not agree with you that they are in violation or they have chosen to intentionally violate the rules which is cheating. In either case the involvement of an official is the appropriate action.

The rules are there to keep the playing field level and by not informing the appropriate officials about severe violations, you are not only doing a disservice to your team but to others as well. If the issue has been given a pass for whatever reason (eg. the 488 bumpers discussed above) the Head Ref or LRI should know this and be able to inform you and explain.

One thing to keep in mind is be sure that the team is actually in violation of the rule. If you think the conversation is awkward when the team is in violation of the rule it's at least 5 times more awkward for both parties when you're wrong.

[Tristan Lall]

I have to admit...when I saw the thumbnail of that robot in CD-Media, my first thought was 'illegal bumpers...not again'. Plenty of other robots managed to violate various tenets of that bumper rule, so 488 is in good company.

One of the things you get to see as an inspector—that perhaps isn't totally evident when the GDC is writing the rules, or when the teams are building the robots—is the level of hardship involved in correcting some rules violations.

The classic example of a devastating violation is an oversized robot: if you built it 38.25 inches long, the amount of work required to pass inspection will generally be vast. In 488's case, there was much less work required. Depending on the particulars of the situation, the inspector has to decide what to pass, and what to fail.

There are a lot of schools of thought with regard to this issue. Some say that if it doesn't give the team an advantage on the field, it should be overlooked. I'd say there's a whole lot more to it than that. On one level, as noted above, your participation in FRC is implicit acceptance of the rules in the book—you can't ignore what you don't like. (If you could expect to get away with violations, there would be an incentive to badger the inspectors hoping for leniency through exasperation. That can't be suborned.) Although I can conceive of some extenuating circumstances where this might not be appropriate, for the vast majority of situations, if you aren't complying with an explicit provision of the rules, you need to fix it.

That of course raises the question: when do you have to fix it? (Right now, even if you have a match in 5 minutes? After your next match? Tomorrow? Next event?) One of the objectives of the volunteer corps at an event is to make sure every team competes. To what extent can an inspector bend a rule, or suspend it temporarily, in order to achieve another important objective? It's not especially clear. FIRST hasn't provided much official guidance on this issue, instead preferring, I believe, to let individual lead inspectors make rulings within the parameters of their experience and judgment. It's not the most consistent outcome, but it does have the advantage of flexibility. Despite this, I understand completely the issue that many teams have with this—though most are too polite to admit it: why did that other team get away with something obviously illegal?

The trouble with the "pity pass" is that it allows teams to expend dramatically less resources than the other, more conscientious teams. If you get away with a bumper violation (let's say the much-reviled full support of bumpers clause), it means that you now have time to fix the autonomous mode, or watch an opponent's match, or run to the concessions to get lunch. Compare that to the team that realizes a fault, and resolves to correct it—they're sending people to other pits or the hardware store to gather supplies, and making mechanical changes. In effect, despite the exact degree of support of bumpers being totally immaterial on the overwhelming majority of robot designs, there is still a competitive advantage embodied in not complying. As such, inspectors will generally say that you need to fix the problem.

Despite this, there are some cases where noncompliance ends up being permitted, despite the fact that an advantage is gained. In some instances, teams have arrived with illegal motors on board, and can't remove them in time, without catastrophically hurting their chances to play their matches. If all that stands between a robot and gameworthiness is an illegal motor, then often the team will be passed with one strict restriction: that motor must be electrically disconnected, marked illegal and then removed at the earliest possible opportunity. The principal advantage (of an illegal motor) is negated, but the secondary advantage (of not having to get rid of it) is sometimes tolerated. That sort of thing isn't directly permitted in the rules; there's no clause offering inspectors discretion to bend rules when expeditious. In a backhanded way, that's a good thing—if the rule was poorly written, it would give the (relatively rare) less-than-competent inspector licence to bend rules in a capricious and inconsistent way. In the short term, we rely on the lead inspectors to make these sorts of calls, and when the lead inspectors can't justify the level of distortion of a rule that would be necessary, they can call FIRST HQ for a consultation (strictly at their own option—disgruntled teams can't make the call for them!). In the long term, perhaps it would be valuable to create a contingencies section of the rules, in order to explain in general terms that in certain cases, when all of these factors have been taken into consideration, FIRST supports this practice on a limited basis.

Now, returning to something that came up earlier: why are we enforcing provisions in the rules that are mostly useless? After all, not every rule is of equal importance or equal impact. The bumper rule, among several others, contains a number of specifications that are not especially important to gameplay, safety or other stated FIRST priorities. Teams are often understandably frustrated, for example, when confronted with a rule that makes an arbitrary but functionally immaterial distinction between parts. Inspectors can hardly take joy in having to tell a team that their careful engineering is for naught, because they used pneumatic tubing that was smaller than the only permissible size. And although you can blame the team for not reading the rule (which was plainly written in the manual), ultimately, it's a matter of having better rules, so that these issues don't come up in the first place. These are issues that the GDC needs to consider.

Another argument that comes up often in these sorts of discussions is that in real life, you can't possibly follow every law—so why is it necessary in FIRST? Well, FIRST isn't a perfect simulation of real life (nor is it realistically intended to be one, I don't think). In real life, nobody rewrites the body of law every year—but in FIRST, only this year's rules matter. In real life, precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent) has a specific role in law—but in FIRST, precedents are not binding, infuriating as that might be when you pass inspection at one event and fail at the next. And most importantly, the laws of the real world deal with things of critical importance like liberties and rights—but in FIRST, the rules, and the procedures for applying and complying with the rules are drastically narrower in scope. Personally, while I might advocate for leniency in some areas of social policy (given the importance and consequences of those aspects of law), I tend to take a harder line within the limited scope of the FIRST rulebook.

To turn the usual example on its head: the rulebook is only 171 pages. That's a good deal, compared to any real-world jurisdiction's body of law, so take it and read it!

Similarly, while on one hand, the rulebook encourages us to use engineering judgment in interpreting rules, it does not offer an opportunity for engineering expertise to trump a specification. This statement in the rulebook probably creates more problems than it solves, because in stating the obvious, it also lends itself to the misinterpretation that simply because a practice or design is safe and effective (in someone's engineering judgment), it ought to be allowed at inspection. Teams regularly attempt to justify gross violations by saying that they wholeheartedly believed that they were complying with the intent of the rules—despite the fact that intent is rarely explained at all, and even more rarely stated officially in a form that can lead an inspector to override a rule. Most of the time, we're all guessing about the rule-writers' intent—and that makes it largely unsuitable for use in making on-site rulings.

There's another situation which sometimes compels a lead inspector to bend a rule—in effect, it's like negligent misrepresentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_misrepresentation) on FIRST's part (though in reality, the contractual arrangements between FIRST and a team probably aren't sufficient to justify the actual tort, nor would I be especially enthused at the prospect of litigation on that front). When FIRST tells the teams something via official or semi-official channels, teams can be expected to rely upon that information. If that message subtly contradicts a rule, or leads the team to interpret the rule in a way that satisfies the text of the rule, but which was not previously contemplated by FIRST—and was clearly not intended by the GDC—it doesn't matter: FIRST is still on the hook for their previous statement. The credibility of the competition depends on the ability of teams to trust the information that they receive, and when FIRST has made an error, the officials need to consider doing what equity demands. (I point out that rulings on this basis are exceedingly rare—if you're going to argue this, you'd better have an airtight case.)

Upon re-reading the original posting, it seems the original poster may have instead been seeking the collective opinion of CD readers of what a team should do when they observe another team who is violating a rule.Ken's comments on what to do about an observed violation are also helpful. No doubt, this is a complicated problem. If you feel comfortable reminding the other team of its obligation, then do so—but of course, some people do not appreciate that sort of comment, and it could affect your relationship with that team. My preference would be to tell the lead inspector or head referee—they're the volunteers who are empowered to deal with this sort of thing. The trouble with that is that you probably don't want to acquire a reputation as a snitch, or feel that you're imposing a potentially severe penalty upon a team. My response is that each team is responsible for following the rules: it's not the fault of the person reporting a violation—it's the fault of the violator, or at best a circumstance without fault that still needs to be ameliorated.

PS: G45 is another rule where the referees had to make such a judgment call. 469's primary robot strategy would succeed / fail depending upon the interpretation of that rule. I believe that despite being under intense scrutiny, 469 stayed on the legal side of that line. However, their success points out that it is extremely important to teams designing robots to know where these regulatory lines are drawn, as the success / failure of a robot strategy is often highly dependent upon the exact rulings that will be made. Often times, there is a huge advantage in being able to come up right to the border of rule legality (without stepping over) as contrasted to instead choosing a design which stays well back from the border of rule legality. It is extremely frustrating to teams to make a design to come up right to the edge of the written rules (but no farther) and then to see other teams that stepped completely over the written rule, enjoying a significant competitive advantage because of their transgression.I can absolutely sympathize with Ken's feelings here. When a rule isn't adequately explained, there are always nagging questions about where the boundary lies. This year, 469 took a bit of a risk by forging ahead with a design that could, depending on the interpretation of the rules, be considered illegal due to <G45> (active mechanisms contacting the ball), and arguably <R16> via <G46> (ball penetration into a mechanism above the bumper zone). While the <G45> question was addressed in an early team update, the <R16> question was never formally dealt with—and could have resulted in a nasty ruling going against them. (The issue was that the meaning of "inside a MECHANISM or feature designed or used to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is above the level of the BUMPER ZONE" was not clear. Is "inside" defined as being within some imaginary boundary drawn through the maximum extents of the mechanism? Passing more than three inches through a closed loop in the mechanism? Subtending more than three inches of the ball between points of contact, below a plane parallel to the motion vector of the ball?*)

I can't blame teams for being scared of being on the wrong side of an ambiguously-constructed rule. Actually, if you want a perfect example, consider Ken's team (1519) in 2008—they had issues with the interpretation of the definition of "robot", despite doing their due diligence to stay on the right side of the law. It was actually a bit embarrassing to see a robotics competition use a poorly constructed definition of "robot", and enforce it to the detriment of a team. (Even if the team was in the wrong—which I don't think they were—this is one of the rare instances where that negligent misrepresentation exception could have been rightfully suggested—at least, I believe so in my unofficial capacity as a bystander.)

*This was (basically) the definition we used in Waterloo, because it was the least restrictive definition that would universally be understood as being "inside".

[Wayne TenBrink]

The rules are the rules and they need to be enforced uniformly - both at inspection and during game play.

There has been a lot of discussion here about the similarity between the FRC rules and customer specifications. I see a lot of those, and they are often ambiguous or open to misinterpretation. If I see something I "don't like" I can either take exception or ask the customer to consider a change. The one thing I can't do is just ignore stuff and deliver whatever I feel like. There is a time & procedure for working out differences. FIRST has a similar concept with the Q&A forum and updates. Students should be taught to use this as a tool to make sure that their robot complies at inspection time.

I fret about some of the rules governing build schedule and re-use of fabricated parts. The way the rules are written, teams have an incentive to purchase mechanisms rather than develop and build their own. We are encouraged to develop prototypes and concepts in the fall, but then we are forbidden from using any component with the exact design in the robot - even if we built a new one during the build period. Our team has been evolving a frame/driveline "system" that can be adapted to a wide range of finished arrangements (wheel size & quantity, frame aspect ratio, ground clearance, etc.). The finished assembly will be different every year, but at some point a bracket, axle, or frame rail might need to be the same as some previous model - which would be a violation. If we just used the kit frame, we wouldn't have to worry about that. Perhaps per <R25, example 5> we could just publish our frame design and then it would be "public" and we could use the same design in the future. Gearboxes are another example. If we used public plans to modify a COTS gearbox to accept a CIM , we could use the exact design, but not the same gearbox again next year. If we just used the gearbox in the kit or bought one, we are free to use it over and over again. All of these rules are basically on the "honor system" because they are virtually impossible to verify and enforce.

Regarding <G43> violations - our robot was capable of posessing more than one ball. We considered the <G43> warning about multiple ball posession capability to be an indication that the referees would be watching - not a prohibition against having the capability. We thought the potential benefit of a wide pickup zone outweighed the risk of an occasional penalty, and it paid off. We used driver skill & ball magnet control & the occasional random kick to avoid penalties. We only receive one all season.

[Ken Streeter]

I have to admit...when I saw the thumbnail of that robot in CD-Media, my first thought was 'illegal bumpers...not again'. My personal favorite example of illegal bumpers is this one (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/35679?) -- an example of a team manufacturing legal bumpers but a GDC member actually modifying the bumpers to make them illegal and then presumably allowing them to compete with them anyway!

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/img/bc9/bc96fe00fb834453bb798807ecd90137_m.jpg (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/35679?)

PS: The above photo is actually a great example of one of the ethical issues that arise regularly in order to follow the rules precisely -- are rule violations that don't give any competitive advantage to the offending team okay?

The problem is that once any rule violations are permitted, one now enters a slippery slope where a line has to be drawn between violations that are okay and ones that aren't...

PPS: Please realize that I'm not at all upset about teams that competed with bumpers signed by Dean Kamen -- this is just an ironic example of the dilemma that arises with many of the FRC rules...

[Chris is me]

The following statement may be elitist, mean, etc.

Pity passes are not a problem at all. The teams that get them are the teams that didn't read the rules well enough, and no team that unprepared for competition is going to have an effect on the eliminations anyway. (Unless this is Bayou 2010...) The only other "eh, whatever" passes are for stuff like 488's bumpers which, though illegal, really had no effect whatsoever on the current regional event.

I'm beginning to wonder if "worry about your own team" is something that shouldn't just apply when you're thinking nasty thoughts about your favorite teams from IFI. To a certain extent, if a random kitbot team has a bolthead issue or something, maybe you should live and let live, being content with the knowledge that you were the one to strive to read every rule of the rulebook and made sure your robot will never have anything of questionable legality. FIRST isn't supposed to be fair anyway, right? ;)

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Pity passes are a problem and should not occur. There are so many resources at a regional event that most every team can become compliant if they accept help. The LRI, Head Ref and FTA can come to a meeting of the minds on the best way to handle each situation. That decision is made with the knowledge of the resources at the event, the teams present, the ability to obtain legal parts and the amount of design work that is needed to accomplish the required work. The LRI should be knowledgeable enough to be able to look at the problem and see a variety of ways it can be corrected. We have to keep in mind that a team showed up at Champs without a robot, built one on the practice day with help from other teams and competed.
That being said, if you don't meet me at least halfway, if you refuse help from other teams, if you are a mentor who refuses to take action, then your students suffer. I don't want that, your students, parents and sponsor doesn't want that and First doesn't want that. Give me a chance and I(we) will figure something out. It makes you stronger, your students have a great experience, your alliance partners are happy, and the people in the stands won't know that anything is wrong.

[DonRotolo]

I agree Al, but sometimes it takes a baseball bat to convince the mentors to accept help. At one regional I wanted to smack this guy, but I just made a pest of myself until he gave in.

They passed inspection around 2 pm Friday :ahh:

[dtengineering]

I love the photo of Dean Kamen making a set of bumpers illegal. It would have been entirely justified for an inspector to rule those bumpers illegal regardless of whose signature it was... but there is a point where discretion becomes important.

And that is why I would like to add one comment to the commentary on 488's bumpers that, while not particularly relevant to their legality, might help inform the discretion that was exercised in Seattle, at least.

488 could easily have fixed the bumpers. Their team, and mentors, are great at fixing problems. In fact, they spent a good chunk of the weekend fixing problems for many, many other teams. In addition to doing all the good, helpful things that top notch veteran FRC teams do, they also provided the machine shop and the crew to run it. If they absolutely HAD to fix those bumpers, they could have pulled a couple of their mentors from the machine shop, had them run out and get some new fabric, and had the bumpers fixed in a matter of hours. Instead, the mentors remained hard at work, helping teams with more significant problems, and less significant experience and resources, get their machines up and working. I think it was a good use of resources.

There were also a few less experienced teams who had done their blue bumpers up with black numbers, that... in Atlanta... would have been sent back for not being in a sufficiently contrasting colour. (At least if I were the inspector, they would have.) But given the amount of work that was going in to get struggling teams up and running, and have 100% of the kids get a chance to play the game, it probably made sense to focus on the "big picture" first.

At least those were the thoughts that I had when considering why the LRI might have exercised discretion in this case. It probably wasn't the call that I would have made, but I can understand why it was a good call to make.

Jason

P.S. Ironically we were (at first) asked to "fix" the mitred corners on our bumpers... at least until we showed our inspector that the rules had been changed to allow "bevelled" corners this year. It just goes to show that inspectors can get caught by rule changes, too. It's a tough job!

[pfreivald]

I am absolutely paranoid about making sure that all rules are being strictly followed. (1551 was one of those teams with a ball-handling mechanism that *could not* possess more than one ball... And unless something really weird was going on, a ball could not pass more than three inches inside our bumper perimeter anywhere.***)

I'm not an engineer. I have a BS in Physics and an MS in Deaf Education. The physics degree helps with this whole building a robot thing... sometimes... I know a lot more about quarks and neutrinos than I do about evaluating why a speed controller is acting funny, if it is fixable, and how. But aside from being a theoretical physics and sign language guy (and beekeeper), the other major thing I have been all my life is a gamer.

Tabletop war games, board games, card games... I love them, and I always have. One of the things I really, really love about FIRST is the challenge of the games themselves (I think we nailed the combination of strategy and robot functionality this year, and really missed badly last year), and one of the things I really, really hate about FIRST is the inconsistency with which rules are enforced. And the changing of rules -- such as ball penetration this year -- makes me want to set myself on fire.

It is my opinion that the rules should be clarified as necessary during the build season, but should not be changed, and should be enforced to the letter, across the board, regardless of the consequences to a team. From bumper rules to motor usage to restrictions on robot functionality to what penalties are given for what actions, there should be no pity passes for anyone, ever. Enforcement should be to the degree as to render the discussion in this thread entirely moot.

But on that note, the inspection checklist should be in the manual when it is released at kickoff, and only changed if a rule clarification makes it necessary. Checklists are easy to follow, and are a great way to make sure you don't have a serious problem five weeks in to the build season. (Well, let's be realistic. It's a great way to make sure you don't have _this_ serious problem. Your robot could still run amok and catch fire when you enable it. ;) )

Unenforceable rules -- the 'on your honor' rules about prototypes vs. complete designs, for example -- should be stated as exactly that. We all know teams that use the exact same drive train or the exact same frame design based on the same CAD drawings every year. Even if they re-build it from scratch, it's not legal. But it's also not meaningfully enforceable either, because inspectors can't be expected to know the design specifications of every team's mechanisms from year to year. It's also trivially circumventable in letter if not spirit. ("No, no, it's not the same... The 1/4" hole we don't use for anything is 1/8" higher this year, see?") Rules that are not enforceable regarding the build should be explicitly stated as 'on your honor' (or GP, if you prefer).

Rules enforceable during inspection should be enforced in a draconian and unforgiving manner. (In Rack and Roll, robots should have to have demonstrated their mechanisms inside an appropriately-sized box to demonstrate that they did not exceed the size limitations, for example).

Rules that are enforced in-game should be easily enforceable by a good ref crew, and should be enforced as consistently as humanly possible. (I watch football. I understand that officials make mistakes, and that they can't see everything all the time. But they make sure they have enough refs to catch everything that should be caught, and they generally do a good job. The same is true for FIRST in my experience -- the ref crews are stunningly good, IMO.)

In-game or inspection-based rules that cannot be enforced (either because there is no way the refs can possibly keep track of whatever it is, or because it would be too big a delay or too big of a logistical hassle in the inspection process) SHOULD NOT BE WRITTEN.

But at the end of the day, it is not the refs' -- or the inspectors' -- job to be nice. They have a duty to perform, and they should perform that duty to the best of their ability.

That's my two cents.

Patrick

***The one place I saw ball penetration happening a WHOLE LOT was when robots were going over the hump if a ball was in the way. We wanted to make sure that we would not incur these penalties even in this situation, so we designed our robot to not incur such penalties -- and in doing so, we could go over the hump, slowly, on the FLR practice field, and on the actual field, and yet couldn't do so at Championship... We think a very small difference in the hump construction was all it took. A lesson learned about engineering things too closely! But the point being that there was a rule we took very seriously, and doing so served us very well at FLR... And then it was changed in such a way that we could have been a bit less conservative with our hump-climbing design parameters, and been more successful in that area.

[Don Wright]

Yes, my original question was more about when (and how) should you say something if you see something that is illegal in your opinion? What is the ethical and proper method for different issues:

- They are non-functional issues (improper labeling on bumpers, Dean signed it, etc...)
- They are functional issues (you think someone's ball grabber is illegal)
- They are questionable game play issues (guiding balls into the goals from the ball return)
- They are non-robot issues (saving seats, over zealous safety captains)

Here are some of the ways I've seen it suggested/done:

- Try and talk to the team
- Report to the lead inspector
- Report it to the FTA
- Report it to the Lead ref
- Come on to CD to discuss the issue

Just curious to see how different teams handle these situations and get some feedback on the response they received.

Yes, it's a touchy/difficult subject.

[Ken Streeter]

Yes, my original question was more about when (and how) should you say something if you see something that is illegal in your opinion? What is the ethical and proper method for different issues:
Here are some of the ways I've seen it suggested/done:

Don, thanks for the clarification on your question! I wish I had a clear answer on how to handle such situations. This issue comes up at nearly every tournament I attend, and I'm also looking for the community's perspective on what to do, too.

My personal approach is to always talk to the team as the first step. What to do next depends upon what happens when talking to the team. As a particular example of this, I would like to relate a true story from this year at Championship that I now think I probably should have pursued a little further by directly talking to the team leadership. I'm curious to hear what the rest of the CD community thinks about both your general questions and any specific examples posted herein.

Now on to the specific situation I encountered this year...

On one of the evenings that we were working in the pits, (I'm not sure if it was Thursday or Friday) two students of another team dropped by asking if we had a spare of a motor that they needed to replace a broken one on their robot. They held up the broken motor to show us what they needed, and it was a globe motor. I said to them something like, "Um, we don't have any of those motors with us, because that motor is a globe motor and isn't a legal motor this year, as it wasn't in this year's kit of parts." The students said, in a mostly-surprised sort of way, "Huh, another team told us that, too!" They then proceeded on their way down the line of pits looking for another team from which to borrow a motor.

From the first instant they left, I wasn't sure exactly what to do. I had clearly let the team know that they were in violation, which I personally feel is an important first step in "reporting a rule violation" against another team. However, it wasn't clear to me whether or not the team would do anything about it -- when these students returned to their pit area would they tell their team leaders that the motor was illegal? If they did tell the team leaders, would the team leadership do anything about it?

I didn't know the team number, but later that night I wandered around the pits to try to find the team with the offending robot. The team wasn't in our division, but was instead in a different division (Curie, I think). A quick look revealed that there was clearly a globe motor on their robot. I then looked up at the standings board to find out where their team was listed. They were listed somewhere around the bottom quarter of teams. From the combination of where they were placed in the standings and a visual assessment of their robot's capabilities, I speculated that they were not likely to be charging up the standings. In the interest of leniency and trying not to make enemies with a team I didn't even know, I ended up deciding to carry the issue no farther. I stopped by the robot inspection station (which was empty at that time) to confirm that the robot was inspected according to the whiteboard, but didn't do anything further. For all I know, the problem was found by the inspection team and the team was working on fixing the problem.

Now, particularly in light of this discussion, I wonder if I really did the right thing. I now feel that I should have talked to some of the team leadership to let them know about the problem. If nobody else ever ended up noticing the globe motor on their robot, this team might end up using a prior KoP motor on their robot next year, in which case my having not let them know about the problem more explicitly could make things very difficult for them next year!

How would others suggest handling this kind of thing?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I love the photo of Dean Kamen making a set of bumpers illegal. It would have been entirely justified for an inspector to rule those bumpers illegal regardless of whose signature it was... but there is a point where discretion becomes important.

And that is why I would like to add one comment to the commentary on 488's bumpers that, while not particularly relevant to their legality, might help inform the discretion that was exercised in Seattle, at least.

488 could easily have fixed the bumpers. Their team, and mentors, are great at fixing problems. In fact, they spent a good chunk of the weekend fixing problems for many, many other teams. In addition to doing all the good, helpful things that top notch veteran FRC teams do, they also provided the machine shop and the crew to run it. If they absolutely HAD to fix those bumpers, they could have pulled a couple of their mentors from the machine shop, had them run out and get some new fabric, and had the bumpers fixed in a matter of hours. Instead, the mentors remained hard at work, helping teams with more significant problems, and less significant experience and resources, get their machines up and working. I think it was a good use of resources.



So at what point does the decision become inportant? Who decides where that point is? Should 'other factors' (such as running the machine shop) matter in that decision? Is it right that that decision point may be different at different regionals?

I'm sorry Jason, but I have to disagree with you. Allowing teams to play in violation of the rules (even the ones that 'dont give a competitive advantage') is wrong, and sends the wrong message to all teams (that the rules are not for everyone).

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Both Don and Ken have raised some valid issues that mentors need to think about. Unfortunately, not all teams are open to dialogue with other mentors. If you know the mentor(s) on the offending team and feel you can approach them with the problem, they might be truly happy that you let them know before a LRI or ref points it out. The sooner the better. I would quietly call them over to some place outside the pit so you can have a one on one dialogue and see what happens.
In most cases that involve rules violations on the robot, as Ken has discussed above, the LRI is good person to turn to. I personally would like to know if the robot passed and who the inspector was. It could be they missed something in the heat of battle or they weren't checking everything on the inspection sheet for the robots they checked. In either case, it is an inspection issue and the team needs to correct it with our (LRI) help. Lead inspectors are chosen for their talent to point out a problem, discuss ways to correct it, pass info along to the head ref and make the other participants know that there are people who are trying to keep the playing field as level as can be. This year in particular, we were in a position to point out to teams that although the majority of their design was compliant, there were occasions where the team did violate or seem to violate the rules. i.e. ball intrusion designs, bumper perimeter violations as parts wear, aggressive play, assemblies not tied down.

You as mentors should not have to worry about approaching the team and you should not find yourself allied with a team that gets called for an inspection issue when they have been playing all weekend and your match will put in #1 or move you out of the picking. Universally, I don't think there is any adult or student who wants to win because the other alliance gets DQ'd for something.

I am asked to check for items listed by Don all the time. In about 90% of the cases, the team is compliant but something is just on the fringe. i.e. From the stands, a team's kicker looks like it extends outside the bumper but on inspection, there is a mechanical stop that prevents it. Game play issues should be asked of the head ref and that is easy during driver meetings or just following a match. Connection issues are best handled through the FTA who has the tools available to diagnose most issues.

LRIs are really nice people. If you find that someone has pointed out a rules problem on your robot, come and find the LRI and explain it. We will check it over, discuss how and if it needs to be changed and will inform the ref that things are progressing. In many applications, it is a simple matter of removing a breaker to turn an offending motor into ballast. We want your students to have a fun and quality experience and we will do what we can to make that happen.

If people would want to open the discussion, I can certainly try to list some of the really odd things inspectors came across in inspections this year.

ps. It is not uncommon for a team to modify their robot after inspection and not reinspect until finals inspection. A team that adds something that is illegal may have other teams copy that mod thinking it is legal to do so. I believe many "I passed at the last regional" statements may in fact be due to this modification. If a team does not place high enough to be finals inspected they will ship a robot that is non-compliant to their next event.

[dtengineering]

I'm sorry Jason, but I have to disagree with you. Allowing teams to play in violation of the rules (even the ones that 'dont give a competitive advantage') is wrong, and sends the wrong message to all teams (that the rules are not for everyone).

No need to apologize, Daniel, because I don't think we are disagreeing! As I concluded my post,

It probably wasn't the call that I would have made, but I can understand why it was a good call to make.

I was merely trying to provide some context that, in my mind, helped me to understand why the decision might have been made to ignore what was clearly a bumper rule violation.

As I have posted elsewhere, I don't think there is such a thing as a minor or insignificant rule, and I'm a big supporter of 100% firm enforcement of all rules (at least at FRC events... I'm a bit more lenient doing VRC inspections). While I was surprised to see this rule not enforced in Seattle, I wasn't offended, worried, or concerned. In the context of the event, I can understand the Lead Inspector's discretion, even if I would have likely made a different call.

(Respecting a decision) != (Agreeing with it)

Jason

[pfreivald]

If people would want to open the discussion, I can certainly try to list some of the really odd things inspectors came across in inspections this year.

I'd love to hear it! Perhaps in a different thread?

[Mop Iii Top]

I kind of have a problem with what you are asking. Here's my reason why...
Rules are put in place to make the world safer. Whether it would be laws or guidelines, laws are put in place to make the world safer. Why would teams knowingly not follow a rule. It is unlike FIRST Teams to disregard a rule just because it means more work. They would be putting themselves at risk as well as other robots.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Why would teams knowingly not follow a rule. It is unlike FIRST Teams to disregard a rule just because it means more work.

T,
You are absolutely right. Very few teams knowingly break the rules. I can count on one hand those that I have personally seen. Many teams, however, don't read all of the rules or only read what they want to believe. i.e. the rule pertaining to maximum size of pneumatic cylinder is read as 'I can use any cylinder' or 'we have always used Globe motors so I am using a Globe again this year. Gee, where is that Globe motor that came in the KOP? OK, I'll just use this one from stock'. This is where the inspector really earns their pay. How do you tell a team that they have the wrong motor when their entire design relies on the use of the illegal motor. There is no easy way to do that but it must be done. I find that openly discussing it with the mentors and students in their pit is the best way. You get the majority of the team hearing the same message. Then you can start to discuss alternatives, how to function without the illegal part, how to establish a timeline to correct the issue and what can be done to compete with the robot in the next match. The first reaction will usually tell you how the next few minutes are going to progress. If the team says "OK, what are we going to do to correct this?" they will fix the problem and my presence is no longer needed. If they argue, I will have them read the rule and see how they interpret it. Again they generally see the difference and find a way to correct it.

[Andy Baker]

How do you tell a team that they have the wrong motor when their entire design relies on the use of the illegal motor. There is no easy way to do that but it must be done. I find that openly discussing it with the mentors and students in their pit is the best way.

This is absolutely the most difficult task of the robot inspector. How this sort of situation is handled can impact a team's entire FIRST experience, positively or negatively.

From my experience, this sort of dramatic non-compliance happens 2-3 times at each regional. I have found that the EARLIER this situation is detected, the better the outcome will be. This is why we inspectors ask the teams to begin their inspections as early as possible, and this is also why we go out to the teams as soon as we can, to find these things.

Finding a major non-compliance and addressing this with the team is a delicate and sensitive situation. How the detection came about is really beside the point. Sometimes this comes from another team, sometimes the inspectors see it first. I feel that if another team sees this, they should immediately come to the Lead Robot Inspector, as this can be a difficult situation to handle. Here is how I usually handle it:

1. Gather the team's pit members around the robot (adults and students), and point out the infraction (for example: this Globe motor is not legal this year). Point out that this motor is not allowed on the robot.

2. I am ready to cite the rule. The immediate reaction of the team is to be defensive. They don't believe that I am correct. I listen to them, and explain the facts of the rule and possibly some background as I know it. ("yes, I was frustrated that this motor left the kit this too, but it is simply not legal")

3. I offer them ways to help. For example, another team has a similar mechanism done with a legal motor, maybe they can talk to that team to get assistance. This step is key in getting them to look at this situation as positively as they can, instead of just fighting about it.

4. I remind them that they will not be legal to pass inspection with that motor on their robot. I tell them that I will check back with them later. At this point, I usually leave them alone for 15-20 minutes, to let them go through an acceptance process on their own. This lets them get over their frustration (hopefully), and allows them to devise a preliminary plan. I know that I just dropped a bomb on them, and I need to let them recover without me micro-managing the situation.

5. Usually, one of the team members find me and they want to show me what has happened before I get back with them (LRI's tend to get busy with other teams). At this point, 90% of the time, the attitude of the team has changed from defensiveness and disbelief to understanding and productiveness. They usually appreciate the help already provided in #3 above. If not, they may need more help. Sometimes, they are very discouraged since this motor may be an integral part of their strategy. If needed, I may ask questions and try to get them to look at a simpler strategy. ("can you push balls into the goal?")

I have seen inspectors who don't do much work on #3 and #5. They just cite the rule, dropping a bomb on the team and then walk away. This easily damages the experience of the team. If the inspector listens to the team and works with them to suggest ways to be compliant, and then pays attention to their progress, then the team can have a very positive experience. Just how positive this experience depends on how early this situation is detected and how tactful the inspectors and other teams (if they detected it) handled the situation.

I hope this helps the discussion, from an inspector's viewpoint.

Andy B.

[IKE]

Andy and Al:

If there is a glaring infraction, do you bring it up as soon as you notice it, or do you try to inspect everything and then bring up the infraction along with the list of other minor improvements you want to see? I am interested in Inspecting next year and I am curious as to your process. Do you stop the inspection process as soon as you see a glaring and intrusive violation? I am assuming a glaring yet easy to fix violation, you would continue on, but for something like an illegal motor in the drive-train, you know this will be a major re-work. Does it depend on the teams reaction?

[Andy Baker]

Andy and Al:

If there is a glaring infraction, do you bring it up as soon as you notice it, or do you try to inspect everything and then bring up the infraction along with the list of other minor improvements you want to see? I am interested in Inspecting next year and I am curious as to your process. Do you stop the inspection process as soon as you see a glaring and intrusive violation? I am assuming a glaring yet easy to fix violation, you would continue on, but for something like an illegal motor in the drive-train, you know this will be a major re-work. Does it depend on the teams reaction?

If I see a glaring issue of non-compliance that is as significant as an illegal motor, I would stop the inspection process completely. At that point, I would tactfully focus and seriously address that issue. If there were other issues, such as electrical tape missing from battery leads or other easily-fixed things, I ask them to not worry about them for now and focus on the big issue. Essentially, I would stop the inspection process and have them concentrate on that issue as described above. Then, after that issue was handled, we would pick up where we left off. This pause in the action may take 3-4 hours of focused work.

Andy B.

Andy

[pfreivald]

And of course, to avoid the illegal motor -- and several other issues -- it is always a good idea to list at the very beginning of the brainstorming process what your resources are (including but not limited to the number and type of each motor, cylinder, and servo allowed). All teams should know what resources they have to work with right away, so they know how many of what they can task to which functions.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

IKE,
It depends on a lot of factors. If it is a major design issue as Andy has pointed out, there is really no way that the robot can play as is so the major issue has to be addressed right away. These can be more than the allowed motors in the drive system, the robot is too big or too heavy, has the bumpers mounted in the wrong area or not supported, etc.
If an actuator motor is illegal and the robot can still drive and perform other functions, then it is simple to remove the breaker while the team decides what is best and how to proceed. If a mechanism is illegal for some reason, a team can tie it down or disable in any fashion they wish. A team should not be allowed to play with these glaring violations but they should not be prevented from playing if we can make the offending item disabled or unpowered. A 28" cylinder for instance, is just so much ballast if the tubing is removed and the shaft is tied in place.
Good inspectors will do everything they can to get you playing. Many years ago, Andy and I were inspecting at an event. Andy found a team with an illegal motor and brought it to my attention. Both of us approached the team, identified the problem and started to discuss a solution. The team was really downhearted, both mentors and students as this device was their main strategy and they challenged the rules. We gave them a copy and showed them what rule we thought applied and left them to read and discuss it. They came back and agreed with us and said they would remove the motor. We offered help and suggestions (you can't hardly get better mechanical help than Andy) but they said they would just disable and we continued with inspection, which they passed. A short while later they came back and said they had redesigned with a legal motor that had more power and better response. They thanked us profusely and went on to place very high for that weekend. One of my best success stories.
As to minor issues like taped terminals, frayed wires, obvious sharp edges, etc., I have the team start working on them while I continue with inspection. I can guide them and show them the best method, inspect their work while I am there, test the fix etc. If everything else passes, I will tell them to continue working while I get signatures and the sticker and that is usually enough time to complete or get most of the way there. I would encourage you to inspect IKE. Plan on spending at least an hour or two working along side an experienced inspector. If you want to come to Chicago, I would be glad to show you the ropes. You have to ready though, I go pretty quick and talk fast.

[buildmaster5000]

To me, the only reason a rules violation would be allowed would be in extreme cases (Dean Kames signs your bumpers is the only thing that comes to mind.), otherwise, you are realy cheating GP, competing with an illegal robot. To me, an illegal globe motor should prevent you from coming on the field until you fix it, given that it is such a major infraction. If it is something smaller, 488's bumpers for example, then you should be let on the field, just dont pass inspection until its fixed. Either way, the rules are for all teams, no matter thier experience or skill level.

just my $0.02

[Yoel2630]

This has become quite an interesting thread.
I am a strong believer that rules are for every body. But I'm not sure it's possible to fix everything, although should be tried.I know that my team is small, 15 kids, and this year has done so much for others, it became a bit load. I remember calling kids from other pits, and they said that they are helping there, I needed to yell at some of them: "I know this is important but we need you,our robot has it's own problems, I'll get someone else to help", and then I would go to a strong team and ask them to help. This is something that a lot of teams experienced(mostly the strong based teams), I know that if there were more work it would have gotten done, but it sometimes really hard, and not as worth as the kid who worked his butt off for 6 weeks not getting to see his own team play.
So illegal motors should be replaced, never seen a drive-train with illegal motors, so they will minimally will be able to drive their bot. Maybe play some D, until the problem is fixed.

A good solution would be to me is an early inspection. like the night before.
There is a limit to what your allowed to add, and you must wight anyhow. This way inspectors can have a brief look and see anything serious like an illegal motor. and point it out to the team, so they'll have a chance to go to their shop that night or early in the morning and on the next day be prepared to fix this early enough. Things like wire colors, are things that can be fixed in moments, changing a motor sometimes requires preparation to be done quickly.
This inspection cannot be full for obvious reasons, but it might spare time from the inspections the next day. I really think this could save valuable time for teams, and give them a fair opportunity to fix the problem(cause most of these things are done unintentionally).

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Yoel,
Inspectors are asked to start the day by walking the pits, introducing themselves to teams, and looking into robots for glaring problems. In those first few hours of a regional, few teams are coming in for inspections so there is time to see most robots and train inspectors. Experienced inspectors have a feel for seeing when team is in trouble, when they are stressed out, when something is not right.
By far and away, our most challenging teams are those that show up late (more than hour after pits open) with no students, delay opening the crate, don't bring tools or the unused KOP parts, no bumpers, no signage, and have never driven the robot. It is like starting a week behind schedule for the inspection staff.

[Yoel2630]

Al,
That's good, I really didn't know/notice this :),
And I understand what your saying is a major problem, I know this year I started thinking about it, they dragged inspections this year in Israel for quite a long time for like 10 teams who had problems. All mostly due to the things you mentioned.
I guess there is no real solution, but to get the teams working better for next year.

[pfreivald]

In those first few hours of a regional, few teams are coming in for inspections so there is time to see most robots and train inspectors.

Really? My perception is that at FLR, robots are lining up at the inspection station seconds after they get their robot uncrated!

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Pat,
We generally will see a few teams before 11AM but anyone who comes over for a weigh in just wants to know how the official scale matches with their weight back at the shop. With the rule that inspected robots can be in a fill in line for practice, we are seeing an increase in early inspections but not a large amount. That changes at Champs for obvious reasons.

[mayde]

As I recall, at the Portland Autodesk regional there were two teams that had bumper colors that did not follow the rules- one team had pale blue fabric and another team had bright orange bumpers.
I was surprised that they were allowed to take it that far from the rules, but I guess FIRST is lax when it comes to rules that don't affect gameplay.

[StevenB]

I was surprised that they were allowed to take it that far from the rules, but I guess FIRST is lax when it comes to rules that don't affect gameplay.
But who is "FIRST" in this instance? It's a volunteer inspector at a particular regional. And that's where things get sticky, because the official ruling from the GDC is clear, but it's not strictly applied. Several people have already made a good case for why these kind of decisions are at least understandable, if not fully acceptable.

Here's a related question that's been touched on but not fully explored in this discussion: If a team builds a robot which is capable of violating the game rules, should they pass inspection anyway, and take penalties if and when they violate the rules on the field? Suppose a team builds a possession mechanism that may violate the 3" ball incursion rule, but claims to have a software limit that prevents it. Pass or fail? What if they have no software or hardware limits, but they say their drivers just won't do it? <R19> is pretty clear for the latter case, but leaves me wondering about the software solution. And other areas, such as multiple ball possession (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=959221&postcount=15), are far murkier.

I know the general policy some years has been to let the robot play, and assign penalties for infractions. After all, you wouldn't flunk a robot for having a drivetrain that is too strong because it is likely to flip other robots over. But when the robot gets on the field, there is an entirely different set of people watching. Moreover, the referees generally have bigger and more obvious things to worry about than a 4" deep ball possession. If I'm remembering correctly, in 2007 where the 84" cylinder rule was the question, robots with the physical potential to violate the size constraint were put on a watch list which was given to the referees. Can anyone who has filled either the inspector or referee positions fill me in on how this worked in 2007 and if it was used again?

I believe the solution here is twofold: First, I would like to see the GDC write the rules in a manner that specifies exactly what is a robot inspection constraint and what is not; <R19> is an example of this done well. Second, there needs to be consistent and tight enforcement of those things that are game play constraints. I realize this is extremely hard. If some of these are too difficult for the referees to judge, then perhaps they need to be made into robot design constraints instead.

Finally, I'll throw in my personal experience this year. We had a motor (on a hanging mechanism that wasn't working) which wasn't clearly labeled, and I didn't know for sure what it was (After more research, I think it was one of the Mabuchis). The inspector asked us about it, and when we didn't give a definite reply, he said, "Oh, yeah, that's one of the drill motors. You're fine." I may not known what the motor was, but I did know that drill motors were not allowed in any of the six years that I've been in FRC. While I don't expect the inspectors to know everything perfectly, this level of negligence shocked me.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Steven,
Although inspectors are volunteers we are an extension of the GDC in that we enforce what they have written and we take guidance from them in enforcing those rules.
As far as the three inch incursion rule, we checked for it, questioned teams on it, advised them that perhaps their design was not truly effective. But when the rubber meets the road, the team is the one who, while meeting the rule, will suffer the consequences when their design fails to produce the desired results. If I had a nickel ...
As to the reference of the drill motor, you fail to give the inspector the chance to correct himself. In the heat of the moment we all make a slip, knowing that the motor was legal is more important than immediately calling it by the right description.
As to 2007, if the robot was thought to be able to expand beyond the limits, it was tested for the limit. If the team claimed they had mechanically limited the expansion but the refs still believed it exceeded the volume, then an inspector was called to make the check again. Parts wear and hard limits move so sometimes it is necessary to recheck. Simply being told by the team that they would not run a mechanism to the point it would exceed the volume did not match the rule. Remember that the volume constraint was zone specific, "While entirely inside of its own HOME ZONE, there is no limit to the maximum width or depth of the ROBOT, as long as it remains entirely within the HOME ZONE."