Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

My assumption would be because it's only been hours since the event occurred, and they haven't had time to properly collect their thoughts and calm their emotions (or even get home, in some cases). I'd be surprised if at least one of the involved parties does not post in the coming days.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I'm hoping to see this discussed further. Not exactly sure on what happened with the DQ, but that wasn't the only thing that went wrong on this regional. It was riddled with really bad calls and inconsistencies on the refs' and judges' part.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I just find it odd that an alliance would be DQ'd after both of its quarterfinals matches were played. Only some very egregious violation of a rule should warrant eliminating a team after they won their first two matches. Even at peachtree last year, a team made changes but didn't pass inspection, but they got disabled in a match and reinspected promptly.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Congratulations to all teams at the Orlando regional for an amazing event! It was great working with our friends from Brazil again! And thank you to 3932 for joining our alliance! I was very happy with our performance, and think that those semi's could have easily gone either way. That being said, congratulations to the winners, a very deserving 1592, 180 and 4901!! We look forward to playing with 180 in South Florida, and hope to see 1592 and 4901 in St. Louis.

Also, as far as speculation about quarters 1, I've heard a lot of rumor floating around, and I think it best to wait for one of the teams involved to inform of the details if and when they are comfortable doing so. All of the #1 alliance teams are exemplary role models in FIRST (note they are all RCA winners) and lets give them the benefit of the doubt that they did not intentionally break the rules and a chance to explain the facts for themselves.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

You would think that, but the hammer of T6 to the nail of R31 has the potential to make quite the coffin for anyone with the misfortune of not paying absolute attention. While Chief Delphi's match.com profile would include possible first date ideas of "long walks through the Ace hardware store, a 48-pack of Mountain Dew and 14 straight hours of machine shop time, and a long night of rampant, unchecked, emotionally-based speculation" it's probably best to leave this one alone until the LRI, HR, the teams themselves, and/or the intrepid crew up in Manchester touch this beast with a 200 foot pole.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Well said Alex. I believe that is the best option out of respect for 233, 624, and 1902. I have the utmost respect for those three teams.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I agree with you. The refs messed up big time in one of our games. They claimed that we had never finished up our autonomous balls. Because of that, they believed that a ball we had in-bounded during tele-op was actually an autonomous ball, and for some reason, even the MC believed that the ball was from the autonomous period.

What puts the icing on the cake is that our alliance partner had irrefutable video evidence that we had scored our two autonomous balls. We, Team Banana, scored our high goal autonomous ball, our alliance partner scored the last autonomous ball as soon as tele-op started, and our third alliance partner was a dead robot.

Unfortunately, we are not allowed to show irrefutable video evidence to the referrees.

This was only one of many isolated incidents where we felt that we were wronged. This year's Orlando regional was a rotten banana, and I really think that our team should not come to the Orlando regional next year.

The opinions in this post are solely mine and do not constitute the opinion of Team 945.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Did you call dead ball on an autonomous ball?

If so, a new ball has to be inbounded and scored to finish your auto balls.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

i had an awesome time at the regional. after robot inspection was over i filled in on croud control and worked the saftey glasses table and it gave be brilliant idea that i hope to reveal at Ft. Lauterdale. thanks to the other voulinteers for working togeather so smoothly.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

If the final autonomous ball is declared dead, the cycle's should have started. The inbounded ball does not need to be scored in order to begin cycles.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Thanks, proves me wrong for watching webcasts.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

We didn't have a dead ball. Our alliance preloaded 2 balls during the autonomous period and scored both. The other team decided to not put the third ball into play for autonomous, which according to G5, is perfectly ok to do.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

It's ok to be wrong sometimes on stuff like this, Gregor. At least you aren't a referee who could impact games with those kinds of mistakes.

<3

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Not to toot my own horn, but go to http://theroboshow.net/ to see my post-Quarterfinal interview with WFFA Andy Bradley & mentor on the #1 Alliance for what I consider a pretty substantial explanation of what happened.

Oh wait, that's explicitly tooting my own horn.:yikes:

In addition, I'm told that the #1 Alliance will be coming out with an official statement in a few days.

Congratulations to all teams that competed. I really enjoyed seeing all of you this weekend, & had a wonderful time!

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Just a quick note: Sorry, fellas. 2-week delay. http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/00.../#.UyUm1PldVXs

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

In trying to find the interview I clicked through a bunch of the video and wanted to say your content and production quality are insane.

The interview is at 2:13:30. Sounds like the worst possible situation happened with the team bringing their robot back to the scale/inspectors and believing they were inspected.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I would really like to find out what exactly happened such that the #1 alliance got DQ'd. To me it seems like a bad communication caused this situation. I hope an official statement is made by either the alliance or FIRST comes out soon.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Keeping in mind our interviewee wasn't the person who actually got the robot reweighed-but-not-inspected, of course. But yes, by that account it sounds like a pretty tragic misunderstanding or miscommunication about the nature of that reweighing.
I don't know what their practices are in Orlando, but our LRI at Lone Star usually makes a point of asking elim teams if they've made any significant changes to the robot since they were last inspected. Which wouldn't count as a re-inspection, obviously, but would hopefully have prompted the team to say "Why yes, we have...".

EDIT: Also, I agree that those production values are pretty impressive, aside from the bit of out of focus interview I saw while similarly hunting. Now I want to know how to get those guys at, say, the Lone Star Regional...

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

First off I want to say how bad I feel for 233, 624 and 1902. They beat us straight up and 100% deserved to move on from our match. We were packing up after quarter 2 and someone from another team came to the pit and told us to stop because they were going to replay the matches due to the extra batteries. We weren't aware of the situation but naturally at that point we were excited to get another chance and not thinking really about the ramifications. In eliminations there's a lot of pressure to keep things moving fast. So we stopped packing and went to see what had happened. A number of people and alliance partners said the ref's needed an alliance captain to challenge this to get a rematch. I approved of this and sent our alliance captain student to present the question. As we stood there and waited on deliberation I realized this could have been a misunderstanding on 1902's part. I seriously doubt they willfully would try to sneak something past the inspection. I'm sure they were too rushed to get the arm off to even think about the inspection. Batteries are the first logical choice to replace the weight. Old rules said you can't do that but I'm hearing after that its not a clear current requirement. I think I heard their alliance checked for the rule as well and felt confident in their decision. I also think the inspection process is more about weight and in their case a major change on the robot could have meant an extensive re-inspection that probably didn't happen in the big rush to get on the field.
That said after we challenged I started to get a sinking feeling that this was going to go bad for that alliance and I don't think it should have. We were excited about having the chance for a rematch just out of a selfish wish to compete again, I really didn't think it would happen but as a team coach you have to leave no stones un-turned, you have to be thorough and consider the what ifs. But when we were told this decision was not negotiable and the 233 alliance would be eliminated my heart fell and I can't describe how bad I felt for pushing the issue. I regret the outcome and sincerely apologize to your teams. I didn't expect it would come to that and looking back would have pulled the plug on our challenge from the start. I saw some kids really hurt by this and didn't want to continue. But when its go time, you go, and we did. But know that we weren't happy about this and hope you guys understand these were truly unintended consequences.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I respect your opinion; however, I think you are directing your frustration of the game design at the Orlando volunteers. We followed the procedure and questioned a few calls knowing it would be difficult to overturn. Frankly, I don't see how the head ref could change a subjective penalty they did not see.

David

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Thanks for your informative post, Dan.

In my 19 years of involvement in FIRST, until yesterday, I don't remember an alliance, or team being retroactively DQ'd from matches, or DQ'd from elimination rounds as a result of what appears to have been a misunderstanding between a team and the inspectors. I am very sure that Bacon were acting in good faith with the changes, and were under 120 pounds with the non-connected batteries.

We have no problem with your team's submitting the challenge. We may well have done the same thing if in the same position, probably expecting nothing, or maybe a rematch for one of the matches.

Anyway, it was great seeing everyone at the event, and best of luck to 1592, 180, and 4901 at St. Louis. We will have another chance to qualify at Chesapeake, and hope to join you.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Firstly, I would like to thank the Orlando Regional Committee and Event Organizers for putting on again another great regional. In terms of organization and event flow I don't have much to complain about.

A lot of complaints about the competition come down to game design issues and penalty value flaws that aren't anyone at the Orlando Regional's fault really and I don't need to go into more depth about them in this thread.

Next and more importantly I would like to thank 1592 and 180 for being the best alliance partners I've ever had the pleasure of working with in my time with FIRST.

Most of you don't know that near the end of qualifications our shooting mechanism which was primarily used for autonomous and the occasional need to truss shot had finally begun to show high amounts of wear/tear due to some small designs flaws that have a greater effect over time. The shooter had basically been through 2 regional events at this point. Both mentors from 180 and 1592 worked with us to replace and machine a gear that was crucial to shooter's function all within about 30 minutes. With their help we never missed a single shot in autonomous in the elimination rounds.

I'm glad to finally be able to have seen a team that I'm working with get a blue banner in person.

I'd also like to congratulate team 4013. The things you've accomplished as a team to win the Chairman's Award in the time you have is astounding.

Lastly, I extend my condolences to the number one seed alliance. I know that our team was looking forward to possibly playing against you at some point in the elims.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

John's posted his bit, I'mma post mine too.

This is my eleventh season in FRC. Ignoring a season of hapless rookie status, I've known that the Florida (and later, the Orlando) Regional is the hardest regional in the South. For nine years, I've campaigned to varying levels of intensity with my past teams to get them to get them to come down and see how we'd stack up. This year with 4901, the planets aligned (read: John and I agreed it was a good idea, and we're the main and alternate contacts) and we finally got a chance to see what would happen if we took a robot down. Never did I think it'd work out THIS well!

First off, thank you 1592 and 180. I've seen 1592 from their rookie year and seen them develop into a force in the state that gives teams with numbers a thousand lower fits. My love of SPAM is well-documented--it was their 2004 robot that first really got me hooked on FIRST, and I was with 2815 when SPAM picked them and won Palmetto together in 2011. After the total disappointment of Palmetto, it was fantastic to play Aerial Assist with two top-notch partners.

Congrats to 179, 1251, and 79 on a hard-fought finals. We encountered all three of you (and in the same match, at that--with Tech Tigers against Swamp Thing and Krunch in Q79), and we knew firsthand just how hard-nosed the play was going to be. Add in that I've got friends associated with all three teams (and a slightly longer history with 1251 after Palmetto 2007), and it was a nail-biter all around.

Tip of the hat to 233, 624, and 1902 as well. I've dealt with all three teams over the years, and their reputation is sterling. I only have what I've read here and what I saw on the RoboShow for information, but I can only believe it was a snap decision (as almost all after-alliance-selection decisions are) that just didn't get fully vetted. I'm glad that 233 and 1902 have another event ahead of them to punch their tickets to St. Louis, and I have full confidence that they will.

Thank you to all the volunteers and workers at the regional. Aside from the fact that many old friends were working the event (and I appreciated catching up with all of you!), this event was run really, really well. Hopefully 4901 can make the return trip again next year!

...but first, someone got $5,000 lying around?

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I feel compelled to clarify a few points regarding the disqualification of team 1902 Exploding Bacon and the alliance also consisting of teams 624 Cryptonite and 233 The Pink Team at the Orlando Regional. We are currently in talks with the Orlando regional, FIRST, and our alliance partners.

I will explain why we modified the robot for the finals and and a few details about what we did.

In the earlier matches we had struggled some with some intermittent technical issues with our shooter, but remained competitive due to the excellence of our drive team and the drive train. The Pink Team recognized this potential and wanted us in a defensive role, while they and Cryptonite put up the points. It was discussed that we would be more effective if we removed the arm to reduce our center of gravity. However, since that is a loss of over 40 pounds we would be too light for good traction and so ballast would need to be added.

At this point I suggested that we might be permitted to use unconnected batteries as ballast. Time was short and we would barely have time to make the changes, adding known weights would ensure that we would not be overweight when reweighed. Also, there few other choices since using bins of nuts and bolts seemed risky as they might spill their contents. Everyone agreed, that if permitted, it would be an ideal solution. Thus, before the final decision had been made to make the changes, I went to one of the inspectors, explained the situation and asked if we would be permitted to use batteries as ballast. It seemed prudent to get approval before embarking on such a course of action particularly since there is the well known rule prohibiting being powered by more than one battery. The inspector said that the batteries would have to be well secured and we must be weighed again and pass a re-inspection. All of that seemed reasonable and expected, so I reported back to the team.

The other teams arrived for consultation and we decided to go ahead with the changes. We removed the arm and attached a couple of aluminum extrusions for shot blocking and stiffening. Using heavy cable ties, the batteries were attached on top of the robot between the upright frames, but otherwise in plain sight complete with their unconnected cables visible.

With very little time remaining, four of our team members including two mentors took the robot to be inspected. The robot was weighed again (with the ballast batteries in place) and came in under the limit. Just to be clear, we did have the robot inspected after the modifications and with the ballast batteries in place. It went straight from the inspection to the field. I was later told by one of the other inspectors that we should have obtained a written re-inspection document of some kind. We did not receive one and it seems that we should have insisted we get one.

Exploding Bacon has a wonderful nine-year history and has won the Chairman's and Imagery awards. We all hold to the values and principles of FIRST with unswerving dedication. We are all ambassadors for these same values. On this point I know I can speak for the team: we would never willingly do anything to malign the reputation of this fine organization or our own good name. We would never risk the reputation of FIRST or our team in order to win. We acted openly and in good faith in every way.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Michael,

Thank you for sharing your side of the story. I have known Bacon since its rookie year, and there is a reason that, to my knowledge, there isn't a single person out there that hates on Exploding Bacon: you guys do the right things and have fun. It was a quick-thinking decision that turned into a painful lesson for all, but I know you guys will bounce back just fine in South Florida. We'll be pulling for our 4-H-mates from up here in South Carolina. :)

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Glad that was finally clarified, sucks that it all came down to an issue like that. Interested in seeing what kind of tricks you guys have up your sleeve for South Florida, Bacon!

On a side note, any other teams from Orlando headed to South Florida?

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Being only a second year Firster, 1 as a student with 4451 and now as a mentor, it is hard for me to blog up to par with the other two mentors, Billfred and John, along side me on 4901.

This 2014 build season was harder than my first because I instead had to be more hands off than I was used to being because of my duty as a mentor and I have to say it payed off.

I would like to of course thank every one running the Orlando regional for the fair regional that was provided whether any one thought it was or not and I am not just saying so because my team was lucky enough not to be overlooked because of experience and be picked by the Bionic Tigers (1592) and SPAM (180). Any confusion during the regional my team had with a match , the referees were always more than happy to clear anything up with our students and always make the fair decisions whether they benefited or hurt us. I want to let Alliance #1 (233, 624, 1902) know that our whole team's hearts go out to you all for what happened and I would like to send out a praise for the maturity that your alliance has displayed. Your alliance reeks of Gracious Professionalism and that has inspired our students!

Last, I would like to thank 4451 Robotz Garage for the help they gave us with our first build season whether it was with robot design, lending tools, or even for the banners they made for our pit! Mike Bryan was one of the most deserving mentors of being a Woodie Flowers Regional finalist. I would also like to thank The Pandamaniacs (1293), or as they are formally known as D-5 Robotics, for giving us the space and advice to train our drive team with obviously helped us win our team's first blue banner!

I LOVE FIRST!!!

...And also like Billfred asked, "Does anyone have $5,000 lying around"

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

If the inspector openly agrees that he passed your robot through inspection I don't understand how the event officials could possibly feel justified in retroactively DQing your entire alliance on the grounds of their own mistake. I don't see a reasonable solution other than giving that alliance three of the wildcard slots for champs as compensation for the mistakes of the field officials.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I have a feeling that FIRST HQ is working with the teams involved and determined what happened what they should and are going to do about it. I have a feeling that Frank will talk about it in the blog sometime this week. From what the teams have said on CD, there seems to be more to the situation than what has been said.(Not Sure If this is true, I would like to find out what happened and how it did.)

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

There appears to be 21 of us right now:
21 ComBBat (Rank 16, Quarter Finalist)
86 Team Resistance (Rank 30)
179 Children of The Swamp (Rank 9, Finalist*)
180 SPAM (Rank 10, Winner)
386 Voltage (Rank 45)
744 Shark Attack (Rank 4, Semi-finalist)
1065 Moose(Rank 17, Quarter Finalist)
1251 TechTigers (Rank 26, Finalist*)
1369 Minotaur (Rank 48)
1523 M.A.R.S. (Rank 5, Quarter Finalist)
1649 EMS (Rank 33)
1902 Exploding Bacon (Rank 38, Quarter Finalist*)
2152 S*M*A*S*H (Rank 19, Quarter Finalist)
2383 Ninjaneers (Rank 58)
3164 Stealth Tigers (Rank 53)
3242 Illumicats (Rank 61)
3653 BotCats (Rank 50)
3932 Dirty Mechanics (Rank 28, Semi-finalist)
4118 Roaring Riptide (Rank 11, Semi-finalist)
4471 Spartrons (Rank 56)
4592 M3 (Rank 39)

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

This ranks pretty high on one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard from a volunteer. I'd be furious if I was on one of these alliance's teams.

This season is testing a lot of people's patience. I fear we're going to have some experienced people check out from FIRST because they're just tired of dealing with stuff like this.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

973 got burned by this exact same situation last year at cvr

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Same thing happened to us at CVR last year.

Lesson we learned was always make sure it's the LRI, and always make sure they put it in writing.

More or less, 95% of "inspections" after initial inspection in FRC are considered not inspections when held up to this scrutiny.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Yup, I remember that, and remember the same ugly gut feeling when I thought there would be a replay and found out they decided to DQ instead.

Ugly stuff. It would be nice if FIRST took a closer look at this aspect of the competition (completely legal, but often rushed, robot modifications post-alliance selection)

-Mike

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

That is just utterly ridiculous, the responsibility should fall onto the inspectors when there is a mistake cause by an inspector, not onto a team for not making sure their inspector was doing their job right.

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.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Active vs. passive, it's still a battery with the potential to leak if damaged. Now there are more than one that could potentially be damaged.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

From what I understand in this situation the multiple batteries on a robot was deemed legal by the inspectors(this may be wrong).

I wouldn't be surprised that next year a rule will be created/changed to include one battery on the robot at any time but until then, this is a very grey area.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

R35:

The one ROBOT battery, Anderson Power Products (or APP) Connectors (p/n SB50), the one main 120-amp (120A) circuit breaker (Cooper Bussman P/N: CB185-120), and the one Power Distribution (PD) Board shall be connected as shown in Figure 4-11.

Thats the closest thing I could find towards saying that having multiple batteries be illegal.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

To further your second point, I would be highly surprised if there is not a clarification of this in tomorrow's Team Update.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Legality of components can only be decided by the LRI.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

The manual does not tell you what you can do. That's why in the Q&A system there are a bunch of "We cannot comment on specific designs." responses to "Can we use a 3/8" bolt for an axle?".

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I understand.

What I was trying to point out to the person I quoted was that just because it doesn't say an item is legal, that it is legal.

An analogy to what I was referring to:

The manual says nothing about the use of a Globe motor...does that mean it is a legal motor this year? No

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

But R29 covers all motors including globe motors

I do understand what you are trying to get at but, a lot of those situations are covered.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I wonder whether R8 is relevant to the idea of using lead-acid batteries as counterweights or ballast. Is battery acid a hazardous material?

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

If you make the argument that lead acid batteries are hazardous material and shouldn't be used on robots that may take hard hits, then we shouldn't be allowed to use them at all. It's definitely against FIRST's safety principles to say "yeah it's hazardous and unsafe, but a little bit is OK, just this once."

I'd buy it if the mounting solution was considered unsafe, but that's not related to how many batteries are on the robot.

Given that it's an ambiguity in the rules (It COULD be legal...but it also could not be, depending on how you read it), I think it's perfectly fair for the LRI to make his interpretation that extra batteries of the same kind as the main robot battery are illegal. What bothers me is that it seems that 1902 was given a signoff/pass by an inspector (maybe not the LRI) that it was OK. Lacking a formal re-inspection process and documentation, that should qualify as a passed inspection. If the LRI disagrees and wants to make them change it after it is brought up, that is also fine. But a T6 shouldn't be given to a robot that had passed inspection, regardless of if the LRI thinks it should or shouldn't have.

In my opinion, the entire thing gets hung up on what is or is not an "inspection", what process the teams and inspectors are supposed to go through to get re-inspected, and ensuring that both the team and the inspectors involved are on the same page as to what is being agreed upon.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

If robots didn't have batteries at all, none of them would be taking hard hits (...or soft hits... or be moving at all).

Safety is a matter of risk. It's also a matter of balancing that risk vs. need. One battery to power the robot is a requirement (both by the rules and the physical requirements of a working robot); an extra battery doing the same job that a block of metal could do is not. That risk vs. need balance is very different for the first battery than it is for the second.

Anyhow, you're speaking more to perceived intent behind the rules than the actual rules as written. What do they actually say? In any other context, if a team showed up at inspection with a sealed canister of corrosive fluid on their robot (one that wasn't somehow required, that is), would it pass inspection?

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I think it boils down to this. From the chatter at the regional, because it wasn't clear if that configuration was allowed, and they had to call FIRST HQ to find out. (of course this is all hearsay). But this was done AFTER the two matches were played and then the DQ'ed happened.

This was a terrible situation that happened, and I'm hoping that the rules will be a lot more clear about what's allowed and what's not allowed when it comes down to final matches and configurations.

I want to thank the volunteers for their time and effort and it isn't easy having to judge so many matches. I personally know one of them, and can say that he is a wonderful teacher (ret.). All because of him, I got introduced to FIRST and my life has changed since then. Thanks Tom Higgins! :]

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

On this year's inspection checklist - which is used as the "official" tracking document at the regionals I've inspected at - there is a section for re-inspection sign-off:

http://www.usfirst.org//sites/defaul...list_Rev-B.pdf

(Reference the "Reinsp" and "Final Insp (initial)" areas). It appears on last year's form, as well:

http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default...nChecklist.pdf

I don't know if this section is used religiously, because I've never been an inspector on Saturday afternoon. To me, in general, the official re-inspection should be tracked here, particularly if it's not done by the LRI.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I felt like this myself after 2009 and 2010, but the last 3 years really brought me back from that ledge.

I also used to be huge into BEST Robotics. It was a good change of pace from FIRST with the limited kit, smaller robots, and games that were a bit more "out there". However, from their first championship event onward I found myself at odds with them more and more, along with the rest of our team. Fields weren't being built to spec, the wireless system had major connection issues, and the build season was stretched all the way into the spring. The whole team was frustrated and felt like we were fighting against BEST the whole time, so we stopped doing BEST.

I've enjoyed FIRST a lot, but let's hope things like this year's problems don't become a pattern. I've seen how that goes.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

This one has been hashed out before. The rules also don't explicitly say you are allowed to use aluminum, but I think everybody agrees that aluminum is allowed.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I'm amused that everyone's jumping on the battery argument after Duncan and I had that out several pages back.

I'll point out again what I think is a cogent change in the rules. In 2012, the Q&A specifically ruled against counterweight batteries. That year's battery rule had the clause "This is the only battery allowed on the Robot." Plus the same COTS computing exceptions. Which makes it pretty obvious that dead weight batteries aren't legal. That clause is missing in the 2013 and 2014 rules.

2013 had a single relevant Q&A: "Can we use more than one battery?" "No." Which is somewhat vague as to the use of said battery. As of Orlando, there were no relevant Q&As.

We're always reminded that this year's rules aren't last year's rules, and the omission of an obvious and clear prohibition against dead weight batteries really would make one wonder about the current feeling on the subject.
You may as well have kept going to embarrass us further. That line does, in fact, go back to 2011, and I suppose I'd failed to notice it the past 3 years on inspection. I'm not usually the one signing the form, anyways. I suppose it is both the team's and the inspector's responsibility to make sure that gets signed each time you get re-inspected. So I guess I'll be annoying our LSR inspectors after all.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Inspection does have a process, although it is not a formally written process with a big document to script an Inspector’s every move. Part of the process is that Inspectors have to take an on-line test regarding the Robot Rules and pass it to be able to inspect at a Regional. Different Regionals do some process things a little differently, but we all are tasked with making sure that all the robots are able to play in Qualification matches on Friday. That involves helping the Teams troubleshoot, guiding them to a solution if their robot is not ready for the field, a formal Inspection Checklist as the record that they have been inspected, a white inspection sticker stuck on the robot after inspection for Qualification matches is completed, and a color dot with the inspectors initials. Some robots breeze through inspection with no issues on their first try first thing on Thursday morning while other robots need several tries, resulting in a partial inspection. The Team may have to work on their robot into Friday afternoon to become compliant with the Robot Rules, resulting in missed qualification matches because at some point, the Inspector has helped all they can to get the robot on the field for Qualification matches and the remainder of the work is up to the Team to complete.

If anyone who has not been an Inspector and/or Inspection Manager would like to Volunteer as an Inspector or Inspection Manager to learn what the Inspection process is, I will be at the South Florida Regional and at Championship to help anyone who wants to learn the Inspection/Inspection Manager process. What you will not see if you join us at the event without having signed up for Inspection in advance is the planning the LRI and IM have to do starting back in the September/October prior to the kick-off date in January and all the communication that happens with the Inspection Team after kick-off and up to the Regional.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I was going through the QA and I found this:

https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/...ng-any-matches

Though it is about motors and not batteries, it does make clear FIRST's interpretation of the rules.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

The Orlando Regional is always jam packed full of excitement and it sure did not disappoint this year. First off I want to thank teams 180 and 4901 for pairing up with us. 180 was the perfect mix of drive-train, ball security and eases of pick up that we where looking for. Spam definitely where the kings of the truss at the Orlando regional. 4901 we where surprised you maid it back around to us. Never missing an auto shot throughout all of eliminations def helped our alliance out a ton, not to mention the shut em down defense that you guys had after teleope started. We hope you come to Florida again as you will defiantly be one of the up and coming teams. The Bionic Spam Squadron alliance was defiantly a force to be reckoned with.

179, 1251, and 79 what a great finals and three really awesome robots as well. We had lots of fun playing against you guys as usual you brought some of the best Orlando regional action and I would expect nothing less from the three vet. first teams that you are.

624, 233, and 1902 it felt really bad to see you guys go out the way you did. I have played along side many of you year after year and I know that you would never willingly and knowingly violate any first rules that you know of to be in existence. I know what type of teams and people you are and have no doubt in my mind that the events transpired as you have stated. When starting my FIRST career as a mentor I looked for someone to emulate, a drive coach to strive to be like, and someone to ask for guidance during my early years. I found this in Andy and I know neither him Kit or any of the guys from 233, 1902 (Zach, Ryan, Brendan, Matt) or 624 would ever violate a rule purposefully. I think FIRST needs to re-exam how they handle this type of situation in the future and come up with a better way of handling it. That is all I have to say about this other than those would have been some of the most intense finals FIRST has ever seen....

801 and 1592 do not plan on stopping here though, its off to the finger-lakes regional we go. With all of our issue sorted out and some improvements being made teams 801 and 1592 will definitely be teams for Florida to be proud of. Oh yeah and then championships after that! =) See you there 180 and 4901. Good luck to all other teams competing in South Florida and to pink in Chesapeake!!!

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Well said brother. Time to take some Florida sunshine to the Finger Lakes.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Nor does it say you can use steel plate for the frame, that you can weld the frame, that you can use English OR metric bolts (bolts are mentioned numerous times, but the measurement units are not), and on and on and on. :D

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

This is quite off topic from the other discussions here, but this seems fitting to put in the Orlando Regional Thread.

In the future, Wednesdays will be #WhyFIRSTWednesday on the Orlando Regional Facebook page. We will share different brief statements from students, mentors, and Alumni about why they are involved with FIRST each week.

Share your story with us at http://www.formpl.us/form/0B7STmXmeY6NjSkxpSU1DMHR3XzQ .

Time to make FIRST loud! Thanks y'all!

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I'd say this has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. To grant an automatic pass encourages subterfuge. To disregard the fact that an inspector passed it is unfair, particularly for the reasons you articulated.

When serving as an LRI, particularly as I gained more experience (and even before the introduction of the reinspection line on the checklist), I encouraged inspectors to document changes on the original form and initial the changes, but I can't say that I made it a priority to verify whether that was being done. For systematic reinspections for the elimination rounds, I did insist that a record be kept even if there were no changes, but recognize that not every reported change was adequately annotated.

When serving as a regular inspector, I definitely attempt to make those change annotations myself. I haven't made annotations when teams approached me with a reference question that didn't involve at least a partial inspection of a robot part.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I find this logic convincing. There is (at present) no 2014 prohibition on multiple batteries not used for electrical power.

Besides, since there's no clear regulatory mandate, think of it from an equitable point of view: no harm, no foul, right? Who has reason to care if you use a (disconnected) battery or a rock as ballast?

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I'll note that for me, personally, batteries are a ballast of last resort, only slightly preferable to a sturdy bucket of nuts and bolts. If I have options that don't include a 12 lb portable welding power supply, I'd much rather go with those options.

So I'm not saying I think batteries as ballast are necessarily wise, just that the legality seem in question. Much like using an RS550 in a stall-likely application is legal but foolish.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

We at team 624 have refrained from commenting publicly on the events in Orlando to give FIRST a chance to work through and potentially address what transpired in the quarterfinal matches. The posts by mentors from 1902 and 233 were very detailed and informative. We’d like to add our account of what happened and voice some concerns over the process that lead to the disqualification of the #1 seeded alliance after two convincing victories on the field.

As the post from 1902 stated, our alliance felt we would be more competitive if they removed their shooter and instead relied on their extremely high quality drive train and experienced drivers to provide defense during the eliminations. We were aware of the decision to add ballast and after 1902 confirmed with a robot inspector that this was within the rules we even helped provide materials to secure the batteries and add the blockers to their machine. Two of the lead build mentors from 624 were present when four of the 1902 team members took their robot to the inspection station. They had to go in search of an inspector, as none were nearby at the time. The inspector had them place their robot on the scale, took note of the weight, and looked over the robot. He said they were good, and one of the 1902 mentors even confirmed asking if he was sure there wasn’t anything else that needed to be done, and he responded “No, you’re good to go”. At this point we were fully confident that their robot was fully inspected and in a legal configuration (given a robot inspector was asked about the batteries before they were installed, and they were on the robot for the re-inspection). It’s difficult for us to hear that our alliance didn’t do everything reasonable to ensure we were within the rules and ready to compete in the elimination matches. If at any point an inspector (or referee, judge, opposing alliance, etc..) had raised concerns about the batteries we could have very easily taken them off and used another heavy material, or nothing at all, and it would have had no impact on the outcome of the matches that were played.

The inspection process and lack of uniformity has been thoroughly discussed in this thread so I won’t pile on, but we would also like to discuss what happened following the quarterfinal matches. The above account of our actions probably took you well less than five minutes to read, however our team (and to our knowledge our alliance) was never given the opportunity to present that information before the issue had already been argued thoroughly (between the head ref and the #8 alliance, between the head ref and lead robot inspector, and finally between the head ref and FIRST headquarters). During that long delay and conversation we were never asked to provide our side of the story, never asked what we did to get re-inspected, never included at any point before they announced the decision. We believe the information that 1902 and we have presented was not a part of the conversation at any point before they handed down the red cards and sent us packing. We understand that there is nothing requiring the head referee to include our alliance in those discussions, however I don’t understand how a huge, regional altering (and possibly season altering for 233 and 1902 if they are unable to qualify for the Championship event) decision could be made without first gathering all of the facts. By the time our team was brought into the discussion the first thing we heard was “this decision has come down from FIRST headquarters and will not be disputed”. When asked which specific rule was broken that warranted the disqualification we were told that it wasn’t important.

Based on the conversations and posts from teams 179 and 1251, had they been presented with our side of the story as well as the potential consequences (Red cards and DQ) they did not understand what their challenge would lead to. In a similar controversial elimination match at the Utah regional the teams were given the opportunity to withdraw their challenges after the issues had been discussed. I believe (and they are free to correct me) if given the opportunity and knowing it would result in our disqualification, that the #8 alliance would have withdrawn their challenge. They would have understood that we were misled by a robot inspector and were not trying to gain an unfair advantage; and removing those batteries would not have changed the outcome of the matches.

Our last concern is the way the results were presented to the spectators (both in the audience and watching on the various webcasts). The emcee was given an explanation of the ruling and he then relayed that ruling to the crowd. The way they chose to announce this to the crowd was: “During the matches between alliance #1 and alliance #8 it was deemed that a robot had changed their configuration and had not gone back to re-inspect that configuration. Their configuration in both of those matches was deemed illegal, and it was egregious. So, thus, a team on the red alliance for those matches has been issued a red card for both of those matches”.

The implication to everybody listening was that the alliance cheated and was either ignorant of the rules or intentionally tried to get around them. Fortunately as more information has been made public by the teams involved there has been an outpouring of sympathy and understanding from the FIRST community, but as yet there has been no acknowledgment of mismanagement from FIRST or Orlando regional officials. There’s no way to go back and change the result but FIRST can learn from these mistakes and take steps to ensure other teams aren’t subjected to this kind of heartbreak.

It’s a shame those elimination matches cast a shadow over our regional experience because there were so many positives from that weekend. The refs have a more difficult job this year than in any I can remember and I believe they are doing the everything in their abilities to run the matches fairly and smoothly. There are absolutely no hard feelings towards the members of teams 79, 179, and 1251 (even 1251 for that bruising and very effective defense played in those two matches – I hope we don’t have to face that again in St. Louis). I think we all regret the way things turned out and the sympathy / apologies, though unnecessary, were much appreciated. It was amazing to be able to meet and interact with so many top tier teams who we have watched and respected for years. We learned a lot from the way you build your robots and how you interact with and run your teams. The volunteers were extremely friendly, welcoming, and helpful. Our alliance partners throughout the tournament were a joy to work with and we hope to see many of you at the Championship in a few weeks. If anybody is looking to see another part of the country next season we would love to have you at one of the very competitive Texas regionals. Come play with us in Houston at Lone Star next year!

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

It is always good to know that a team can be disqualified for no other reason then 'they said so'.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

At the Arizona Regional, we used that exact 2014 form and the location in the upper right of the form to denote a passed Final Inspection for Eliminations along with an additional different initialed colored sticker on the white inspection sticker on the bot.

I also happen to notice on those forms, and the captain and mentor should as well since they had to sign the form (you read everything you sign, right?), that the following words appear under the Electrical section:

2013 form - "Battery - A single MK ES17-12 battery or a single EnerSys NP18-12 must be securely fastened to robot. <R34 & R35 >"

2014 form - "Battery - A single EnerSys NP18-12 battery or listed equivalent, terminals insulated, must be securely fastened to robot. <R31,
R32, R33>. Check all batteries for compliance."


Not sure where the ambiguity on legality is. The whys of what happened are irrelevant as the bot should never have been presented for Final Inspection with more than one battery on it, connected or not.

I guess I equate the DQ in the same frame of mind as to how the Arizona Regional Head Referee answered a question in the driver meeting regarding ball possession..."Don't make us have to determine whether it was or not." Even if the Final Inspection document was provided, it would have explicitly said that a single battery was allowed and the robot was presented on the field with more than one.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

scca229--I have to say that your post reads to me as from an inspector that has gone through the rigors of a thankless stressful job, and is siding with a fellow soldier. Just my opinion.
I am responding as someone who has never met anyone from any team involved, while also feeling guilty for allowing my stress to cause me to be short with our inspector this last week. I think I'm coming from an objective place, therefore.

1) that's great that you did this in AZ, but it's irrelevant unless every other robot at this regional did this level of paperwork... actually... even if they did:
2) where does it state that the teams are responsible for this inspection form?
You are told you need re-inspection. You go. They say you're good. If that happens, then the responsibility is on the inspector, not the team. If the responsibility is on the team to the extent that you can be retroactively DQed, then that needs to be an explicit rule.

I really can't see how it is reasonable to expect that the teams read every bit of the checklist. I would guess most people just read the "Team Compliance Statement" which is what the signature pertains to. Also, I'm guessing the checklist states the relevant rules on each line because it is NOT intending to be an ADDITION to the rules. If the rules had the verbiage of the checklist, then maybe I could get on board with part of your argument...

Even if I accept your argument that the checklist should be treated as an addition to the rules, this part of the checklist is the electrical section. The batteries in question are not part of the electrical subsystem because they do not provide potential energy to the robot. I could go further, but this already makes it ambiguous.

This analogy doesn't make sense to me. If they called a meeting of all the mechanical leads and the LRI said, "Don't make us have to determine whether or not your robot is legal" I think most people would laugh because that is a joke. That's exactly what the inspection process is for. Everyone comes to inspection thinking they are legal. Don't make it seem ridiculous that a team would come to inspection with something that might be illegal. Unless your premise is that 1902 knew they were illegal, which I'm sure you weren't saying.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

One point about the checklist: it's a summary for the benefit of the inspector, but not the governing document. The rulebook is less clear-cut about the legality.

The signatures of the team members apply to the team compliance statement—which is merely an attestation that they followed the rules. It doesn't indicate that they agree with the interpretations of the rules presented on the checklist or provided by the inspector.

So after all of this - has anyone ruled with authority that using batteries for ballast in 2014 is illegal?

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Yes. First Headquarters ruled they are illegal. They are really the ultimate authority on this. The batteries for ballast being illegal is really fairly consistent on how first interprets their own rules.

The events leading up to & the resultant DQ is a different issue.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

The check list is on the FRC rules web page along with the robot lock up form. I think most LRIs would consider it part of the rules even if it is really a derivative document. The LRIs interpretation of this is the one you have to go by.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

It is a combo of R5, 5.5.2, 5.5.4, and T10.

Otherwise, it would be one Inspector per Robot for the entire duration of the Competition to "Police" each Team to prevent the Team from having a noncompliance vs. relying on each Team to practice their GP and follow the Rules to ensure an even playing field for all Teams.

At 2012 Championship, I met a Team that had a Quality Assurance Specialist (just so happened to be the Team Captain). This person went through each Rule and the Inspection Checklist to confirm the Robot was compliant with all of the Rules prior to bagging for the Regional/Championship.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

OK. I never saw a Q&A on it and the MC didn't state that HQ had ruled the ballast illegal (just that they had failed to get inspected), so I was hoping to see something black-and-white "official".

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

You are saying it is the implied meaning of that combination of other rules. I mean explicit, i.e. "it is the sole responsibility of the team to ensure they have all inspection documentation signed by an inspector before they are allowed to compete. Violation: Red Card" or whatever...

I might be missing a point you're making here. I've not said 1 to 1 supervision was necessary. I just said IMO it is the responsibility of the inspector to ensure the checklist documentation is handled properly if they have communicated to a team that they are "good to go".

I think we might be talking about different things? I don't want to speak for 1902, but I'm pretty sure they all thought they were meeting all the rules. Then one they were unclear on: using batteries for ballast, they checked with an inspector on, which re-inforced to them that everything was again legal...

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

At South Florida the inspection team implemented something we see a lot in the Engineering workplace - Revision forms. All physical alterations to the robot had to be documented and signed off by an inspector that the changes still followed the rules. This puts the responsibility fully on the teams to insure they keep their change-log up to date.

It ended up being more legwork for the inspection team, but all-in-all there was positive feedback, and it made the finals inspection process go rather smoothly. I think we can look forward to other regionals implementing the same next season.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Has your Team tried to take the Field for a scheduled Qualification match without the white inspection sticker and dot attached to the robot or has the Team tried to use the Filler Line during a Practice match without their white sticker and dot attached?

The Inspector initials the Inspection Checklist and the Inspection Sticker.

It is a shared responsibility: The Team is to get their initial Qual match stickers (white sticker and dot) before taking the Field for Qual matches and it is the Inspector's responsibility to make sure that the robot is inspected before Qual matches start so that the Team does not miss their Qual matches. As with anything, the quality of Inspection will vary depending on the Inspector (we strive for uniformity, but everyone is different because we are people and we all have different skills in which we excel). Qual matches get missed when the robot is still in really tough shape on Friday morning. It happens and there is only so much the Team, GP Teams, and Inspectors can do to help in that much of a time crunch. Inspection is there to help the Team successfully compete, troubleshoot issues, and make sure that nobody gets hurt.

The Inspection Stickers are not a blank check to make any mod the Team wants to make after the Inspection Sticker is applied. The Inspection Sticker is only valid for the config at that exact point in time. T10 requires the robot to be re-inspected after a mod is made, and modifications are only permitted within the limitations set by R5. An Inspector has no idea that the Team made a mod unless the Team approaches the Inspector and tells the Inspector explicitly what was changed. If a robot has had a major change, there is not a fancy revision log on the Inspection Checklist; however, the new weight is recorded on the Inspection Checklist with the Inspector's initials and the modification is looked at by the Inspector using the same/original Inspection Checklist (the Inspection Checklist is on the same webpage as the rules on the lower right side of the page if you want to look at it).

As Daniel stated above, I implemented the Robot Modification Log form at S. FL to help the Teams and Inspectors track all robot changes. The intent of the form is to keep all Teams in compliance with T10, 5.5.2, and R5 to prevent red cards and QDs. This was a learning experience for all of us, and it did slow things down a bit for both the Teams and the Inspectors (I had 47 teams on Week 6 with 30 having been to a prior Regional; Orlando had 62 Teams on Week 3 with just a few having been to a prior Regional). From the feedback that I received, I think the results of the Mod Log were favorable. I had just a couple Teams not use the form as it was intended who crossed the scale for Finals with a significantly different weight than their Qual weight with nothing marked on their mod log form.

The Team only has access to the official Inspection Checklist when they sign it. It is the Inspector's and my responsibility to handle the official checklist. If a robot is officially reweighed, either the Inspection Checklist should be updated by the Inspector, myself, or a note should be left for me by the Inspector to update it if I am not there personally to witness it. The mod log form keeps a record of the latest weight with the mod description, date, and time of each mod that both the Team and Inspector have to sign.

Rule 5.5.2 states the LRI is to be consulted for all rulings on legality of components. This is both the Team's and Inspector's responsibility to know that only the LRI can make that determination. I do not now if the Team explicitly expressed and pointed out that they added batteries as ballast to the Inspector who did the inspection just prior to their heading out to the Field or if they just said, "We need to be re-inspected." and then asked, "Are you sure?" after the Inspector told them they were good to go. I personally did not hear the conversations between the Team and the ballast battery Inspector or between the Team and the Inspector who did the final reweigh; thus, I will not comment further.

I wasn't on the Field, therefore, I'm not sure of the exact rules that were cited for the two red cards or exact config the ballast batteries were in when the robot played QF1-1 and QF1-2; however, R5 states that the Team cannot add anything to the Robot that wasn't originally weighed with the robot for its initial Qual inspection. Basically, the Team downgraded the robot to play defense and had to compensate for the significant difference in weight. They added several batteries for ballast. The batteries were not initially weighed with the robot for the Qual inspection in addition to having more than one battery on the robot is not allowed.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

You can't actually mean this literally. You're advocating that an LRI has to be called in every time something not explicitly mentioned in the rules is encountered on a robot. That would be a very busy LRI that must not trust her inspectors and must like micro managing things. Plus, that's not what 5.5.2 says anyways:Which says the LRI is just the last person you can escalate to on an inspection question. Not that the other inspectors have no authority to make rulings on legality. If the other inspectors have no authority to rule on legality of robots, why are they there in the first place?

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

How would that solve this problem?

If 1902 got reinspected, but the non-LRI inspector that signed off did so in error, how does having a change log keep said non-LRI inspector from erroneously signing off on an illegal change?

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Please keep your personal attacks to yourself.

I am the IM, as it states in my signature.

The Team knew what they were asking was controversial enough to have to seek an Inspector to ask the question can batteries be used as ballast before performing the mod. At any time in the past has more than one battery been legal on a robot for power, ballast, or otherwise? I'm 99% sure that the answer to that is no. Why would more than one battery be legal in 2014?

If there is any doubt, ask the LRI.

Actually, we haven't had that many part compliance issues come up as frequently as you make them out to be. I would say it is about three per Regional for us here in FL, and it's normally a motor with a part number that can easily be looked up in that year's part list to know if it is legal or not.

The Team who fabricated the accumulator that Tytus posted a picture of in the S. Florida thread asked an Inspector if it was legal and if not, why it wasn't legal. This question was referred directly to the S. Florida LRI for a ruling and explanation. We also had a motor where we had to look the part number. The motor happened to be legal.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I do not see a personal attack in that quote.

And if that is the policy of the LRI that all part legality issues must be brought to the LRI, then that policy should be made clear to all the Inspectors and when asked the Inspector should either refer the team to the LRI or ask themselves. It should not be on the team to know to ask only the LRI for certain questions.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

Form or no form, you are asking how to prevent human error with an Inspector determining legality of components. No amount of Inspector training will prevent an error from happening 100% of the time.

Why are Teams relying on the Inspector to catch every error 100% of the time? Every FIRST Robot Inspector is not perfect; if they were, they would be robots (oh yeah, robots are programmed by humans and are also imperfect). It is also on the Team to make sure their robot is compliant with the rules. Teams have access to the rules starting on the first Saturday in January all the way through to bag day to check the robot for compliance. Each Inspector has between 30 to 45 minutes from Thursday morning to Friday morning when Qual matches start to make sure each robot is compliant.

The mod log is a record that is carried by the Team of exactly what was modified, added, or subtracted and the updated weight, time, and date that the mod took place. With the form, the second Inspector would have had a written record of what had changed prior to the robot making its way to them for the last inspection. The Inspector would have written communication of what to check vs. relying on verbal communication from the Team. "Added # batteries as ballast" would have had to have been written on the form under the description and signed off by the Team and an Inspector. I'm 99% certain that additional batteries would have been caught at that point. If not, the Team would have had the record to show the field that it was ok'ed by Inspection. Accountability for everyone.

Re: 2014 Orlando Regional
 

I was the person who was quoted. It's how I perceive the quote.

I agree with the second part of your post. However, I have had Teams ask specifically for the LRI in determining a ruling for legality of components. These were not escalated rulings either. Most escalated rulings I have witnessed are due to bumpers. After all these years, bumpers still continue to be a huge issue.