Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Thank you to 179 and 79 for being great alliance partners. Anyone who needs clarification with the call made on alliance number one can take it up with FIRST, the inspection process rule and the ruling are both very clear. No one caught the infraction initially but the robot unfortunately was still allowed to be put in play in that configuration. Best of luck to the winning alliance and to 624,233 and 1902 in the rest of their season.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Interviews with 233/179 are up now as a separate video here.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Those interviews are painful to watch. What a terrible situation.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

What rule was broken again?

From my understanding, team needed to remove weight, team asked inspector if they could use batteries as ballast, inspector said yes. Team proceed to do this then went to get reinspected and weight and would told that they were inspected.

If my understanding is wrong, please let me know, but going off that understanding the robot was inspected while in play, it was a failure of an inspector to document the change.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

What I don't understand is that, why DQ them, instead of having a rematch? They were weighed and allowed to compete but to an error on the inspector, the whole alliance shouldn't be faulted for that. I'm not pointing fingers or anything of that sort. Just felt that there should have been a rematch if this was a misunderstanding. But to the #1 seed alliance, we wish you luck in your other regionals and hope to see you at Nationals.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Obviously a question for the Q&A right?

If an inspector passes a robot that's actually illegal, is the team still liable for being illegal?

Do they (and their alliances, don't forget) get DQ'd from matches when they were in an illegal configuration they were told was legal?

If an "inspection" isn't actually binding or any real indication that a robot is legal to compete, are teams now expected to inspect their alliance mates to make sure the inspectors did their jobs correctly?

Is a team allowed to inspect their opponents' robots (pre or post match) to verify that they actually are legal and the inspectors actually did their jobs correctly?

Also, for all my years in FRC, and my brief stint as inspector and LRI, I don't think I've ever seen any sort of re-inspection form or document. Or any real system for recording this. I've always gone with brief re-inspections and verbal okays from our inspectors before, and everyone's word has always been good enough. If we're going to have to get all bureaucratic about it, I think a lot of inspectors are going to get very annoyed in the coming weeks.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Technically the little blurb at the bottom of the inspection sheet in 2 pt font reads
Of course when that was signed the robot was in a different configuration, and the team honestly believed they were following the rules or they wouldn't have done it. Did the people who made the DQ ruling know an inspector had approved of the modifications? Escalating to a DQ for a team that followed the correct process is the wrong decision. Most volunteer screwups result in a field fault and a replay.

I've been an inspector and an LRI this year and that is how we did it. There is no additional form. If our initial was on your sticker we crossed you off our list and you were elimination legal. We pulled two teams out of queue that had made changes; scolded, weighed and measured them with a visual once over and sent them back to the queue.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Game Rules: 5.5.2, T6, T7, T8, T10, 5.5.3, and 5.5.4.

Does anyone know the entire conversation that took place out on the field with the Head Ref, LRI, Team 1902, etc.?

Additionally, I cannot fix the process escape until I can identify exactly what broke in the process. The names/descriptions of the two inspectors mentioned in MichaelH1902's post sent to me via a PM would help me ensure this never happens again.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I think if robots that have passed inspection but are somehow illegal can still be DQed, it opens a whole new can of worms. I have seen many robots at events that are passed with illegal bumpers (slightly, but still illegal). If this is noticed before a match, it is a disable. If it is noticed after a match, and can be considered for a T6 violation, their alliance is suddenly DQ'd. What happens if it is discovered during the eliminations re-inspection? Do they and all of their quals partners suddenly get DQ's for their matches?

I do not believe that this is what the rules say, however. The rule which applies to robots in violation of the robot rules is T7, which only states that the issue must be rectified before the robot will be allowed to continue competing. T6, which is the ONLY way to get your alliance DQ'd post-fact, only states that the robot must have passed inspection. It does not state that the robot must be legal. It is assumed that only legal robots have passed inspection, but should something slip through, I do not believe there are grounds within the rules to retroactively DQ because the inspector missed something. If the robot passed and has an inspection sticker and a signed inspection sheet, no matter how illegal it may be, it shouldn't be DQ'd. It can only be prevented from playing future matches until the situation is rectified.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Just to pick one, since the rest all seem to be along the lines of "yes, we can retroactively dq an alliance"

What robot rules were broken by the configuration? That's still not clear to me.

The response to this makes me think Team 1902 went to the field under cover of night, thinking they could pull a fast one on the Orlando regional and be halfway to Pensacola before anyone was the wiser.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Most, though not all, rules referencing batteries on the robot refer to the battery, or the one battery, or one battery. (The notable exceptions are the exception for COTS computing devices and the definition of a Custom Circuit.)

The very strong implication is that more than one battery, or battery assembly, is illegal. Now, whether or not a battery (assembly) that is not used to power a robot is actually a robot battery and thus subject to that rule is currently up for debate, or should I say some Q&A/Update clarification.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I was replying to the other post via my phone, which is difficult to do if I have a big quote to sift through. Thus, I didn't quote it.

Your question has to be answered by someone who was on the field and part of the conversation that took place as to exactly what happened.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I want to stress the point that there is no rule in the book stating that you may only have 1 battery on your robot. It does however say that you may only have 1 battery power source.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

No, they don't really. ONLY T6 and 5.5.4 have that authority. 5.5.3 could cause a DQ, under specious circumstances at best, since Head Ref decisions are final and the Head Ref can choose to do whatever he/she thinks is appropriate. But by the actual letter of the rules, all other applicable rules simply state that the robot must be in compliance with the robot rules before being allowed to continue competing, or must be reinspected.

I still maintain that if 1902 asked the question, checked the weight and was given the OK by an inspector (verbal or otherwise), they passed inspection. Regardless of whether or not the batteries are actually legal ballast, T6 requires a robot to NOT HAVE PASSED INSPECTION. If they passed, no retroactive DQ.

Given the wording of the statement at the venue, as recorded on the RoboShow broadcast, the word "egregious" was used. That indicates that it may have been 5.5.4 that was called, not T6. Which sucks, because it implies the Head Ref thinks that they were clearly and intentionally breaking the rules.

I still think that T6 is what was actually trying to be called. I just disagree that if 1902 went through the formally informal process of getting their robot re-weighed and checked over by inspectors, as is customary for re-inspections, they shouldn't have been assessed a T6 because they were passed. They could have been told that they had to address the situation before playing another match, but that's as far as the applicable rules (T7) go.

T10 could be construed to kick over to T6 if modifications were made and a match was played, but that whole link is a little fuzzy. T10 says you have to be re-inspected, but doesn't say that your robot is considered "uninspected" until such re-inspection happens. That is how it is generally enforced and assumed to imply.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

On the other hand, it never says you CAN use more than 1 robot battery.

If it doesn't explicitly say you are allowed to use more than one robot battery in any case (whether for power purposes or not), then it is safe to assume it is not legal.