Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

The way the manual exists right now, that's a trick question. Section 5.5.2 Eligibility and Inspection Rules begins with this sentence:

At each event, the Lead ROBOT Inspector (LRI) has final authority on the legality of any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT.

There is no formal appeal.



I think you might be able to satisfy the rules to everyone's liking if you bring in a collection of fully-fabricated corner-wrapping bumper assemblies. Bonus points if you make them reversible from blue to red without requiring them to be removed from the robot.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

Section 5.5.2 of the Tournament Rules:

Members of the Regional Planning Committee or the Regional Director can't overrule an inspector - please don't appeal to them. As Big Al has famously told a team, "There is no higher authority."

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

From the Glossary of the 2014 FRC Game Manual:

BUMPERS are not considered part of the ROBOT in the definitions provided by FIRST. They are an assembly that attaches to the exterior of the ROBOT. FABRICATED ITEMS are things that are made or modified to be used on the ROBOT, which is a system built for the 2014 game that includes power, communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The BUMPERS provide none of that, as further explained by differentiating between BUMPERs and ROBOTs. Bringing in materials to make bumpers are no different than bringing in team buttons. They are fabricated items, but not FABRICATED ITEMS unless they are designed and used on the ROBOT.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

Whew, so the T-shirts are safe :D

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

That is also how I see the rules. I had my kids build 3 sets of corner bumper assemblies for Dallas this weekend. We'll be giving them to the inspection station when we arrive. I'd rather do it in my shop then have to find a way to do build them at an event.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

Where does it say that FABRICATED ITEMS are only for robots?

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

FABRICATED ITEMS are things that are made or modified to be used on the ROBOT, which is a system built for the 2014 game that includes power, communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The BUMPERS provide none of that, as further explained by differentiating between BUMPERs and ROBOTs.


Emphasis mine.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

Where is it in the 2014 game manual?

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

In the glossary, the definition of FABRICATED ITEM is:

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

This is a link to the Glossary of the 2014 FRC Game Manual

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

But they can help make sure that an unreasonable person isn't in the same position next year...

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

Picone, while I agree with you that the most straightforward option is to eliminate and/or open up the bag solutions significantly, it's probably not the only, or the best way to solve these problems.

Realistically, the issue with the with holding allowance isn't really the weight, and I doubt it's really that you'd have to bring it in at the time that pits open on the first day of competition, but rather what counts as part of the withholding allowance.

As the rules are currently written, any fabricated component not in the bag counts toward your withholding allowance, which is too broad of a scope for such a rule, IMO. The withholding allowance should only count towards parts/mechanisms that are withheld from a robot, implying that the robot cannot function as with out them. For example, if a team chose to with hold their intake, or shooter, or catching mechanism - it counts towards their withholding allowance - and I think we can all agree with that.

But why the with holding allowance extends beyond parts that are not truly 'withheld' is beyond me, and now it forces teams to do things differently than they've almost always done, and that's to not make spare parts (or fewer of them), or assemblies, or choose not to upgrade their robot in favor of making spares. Personally, I think that as long as the spare is IDENTICAL* to a part or assembly that was bagged with the robot, then it should not be considered as withheld, since it wasn't actually withheld, as much as not bagged with the original. (*Identical meaning that it functions, performs, and is physically (within reason, say +/- .25"ish/ an ounce or two per 5lbs) the same as the original, if it does not, then it's an upgrade part...)

There's got to be some sort of happy medium on the withholding rules that both prevents teams from abusing the minor clauses, but also allows teams to have some reasonable collection of 'spare' parts. I don't know if the best way to handle this is by allowing for 'assemblies of COTS parts' to be considered as COTS components (and not fabricated) or by giving each team some amount in addition to their withholding allowance that can be allotted for spare parts.

All of that being said, considering that the 'formal' stance from the GDC seems to be to prevent the over lawyer-ing of the rules by teams, this whole situation is going to be an interesting one to watch. I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing a trend of teams bringing in boxes/bins of disassembled mechanisms - broken down into their most basic components, fabricated and COTS - and reassembled once in the pits as a way to get around the current restrictions...

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

Im not trying to be that guy, but bumpers are made to be used on the 2014 robots.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

Per the glossary:
Bumpers aren't used on the ROBOT - they are attached to the exterior of the ROBOT. It's a small distinction, but given the discussion an important one, I think.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

And they are explicitly exempt from the withholding allowance, per R18-B

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

Are you saying you haven't put your spares in the bag during bag day, then not counted them towards the witholding when you brought them into an event outside of the bag with the WITHOLDING limit's worth of upgrades? We interpreted the rule to be that all built spares had to be in the bag if we wanted a full 45 lbs of upgradeable witholding. To me it has been pretty clear for a few years, but I wonder if we were wrong.

This is not meant to be accusatory, but rather to point out how the rules as-written are very open to different interpretations and are thus unenforceable. Well, unless the LRI is going to inspect every box, crate and cart rolled into an event :rolleyes:.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

John, most if not all LRI's do not make judgements lightly. If there is an issue when I am dealing with a team I will excuse myself and talk with the FTA or I have even called Al. I guess if a team has an issue with a decision you could respectfully ask them to consult with the FTA.

If you still feel that you were wronged I would write FIRST and talk with the volunteer co-ordinator. As stated in another post it may not fix the problem this year but that person may not be asked or allowed to return in that position.

LRI is a very gratifying position most of the times. We find teams with issues and work with them to resolve them. We try to be every teams best friend. There are however times when there is an impasse and that is when it gets tough. I have found that most LRI's bend the rule as far as they can to allow teams to play as long as they are safe and there is no advantage given.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

I find this borderline insane but no one can challenge there authority as there is no appeal process that can be done at a competition.

Is there a way to challenge the head ref? We had one lie to us and then claim "we do not have time to investigate the field fault" even though it meant we where knocked out of elims.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

I might just be crazy (well I know I am) but does R18 mean if you attend competition that is more then 2 days you could in theory not go to any matches and just use the entire time as extended publicity and work time and just throw everything into extra bags?

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

Yes, if you want to spend the money, you could go to a regional and never field a robot.

I can't imagine what damage that would do to your team's reputation.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

I can't imagine wanting to compete against a team that wants it that bad. I mean yeah if you needed the build time cause of some absolute tragedy that is one thing (two if you include the tragedy) but just wow. Can't tell if this is an oversight or intentional.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

While I'm not going to endorse the suggestion that a head ref would lie to a team, the FTA is a good person to turn to if you suspect a field issue is up.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

I feel like head ref's aren't exactly nobodies and are appointed carefully by FIRST. That being said a head ref is there to represent FIRST so challenging a head ref is challenging FIRST's decision to appoint them, although I suppose things slip through the cracks.

Now that I think about it more if you can just constantly challenge the game rules you can delay forever....

GAH gotta stop the thinking. This is why its called First Robotics Competition and not First Robotics Games cause games are generally more in line with having fun and less about winning.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

Although Head Refs have ultimate power in the arena, they are appointed by the regional planning committee. Most Head Refs we've had have been wonderful (Dante from Fingerlakes is our teams gold standard) but we've also had bad experiences such as the ref from Buckeye last year who was downright abusive to people.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

It's not insane. You wouldn't want a baseball player calling up the commishiner (sp?) because of a questionable called strike.

Like in baseball, FIRST needs someone with 'final authority' at the competition. For onfield issues, thats the head referee. To get someone to overrule the head ref only erodes his authority.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

I constantly tell people when we have a bad call that "There are no bad refs only bad calls." I know that isn't true because I have seen and heard of examples of bad refs but I still encourage this mentality.

Shout out to all staff and volunteers at events who step up and make those tough calls.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

That's not analogous at all. A strike is a quick decision based on objective criteria observed in nearly instant real time. An rules interpretation could just be flat out wrong or addressed in the Q&A.

What are the consequences of having a head ref's "authority eroded" by being able to call HQ? How will this change any aspect of their job?

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

It is analogous. Think <G40>

Consider how it would look if an 'elite' team called HQ and got a ruling reversed. I can hear the howls of favortism already.

The head ref must have absolute authority over the game or his position will lose all integrity.

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

Public is already howling when head ref's call favors "elite" team (even when the call is right!) I think at Southfield event public booed! I did not believe I heard it right, need confirmation from others that indeed that was a boo! Too bad...need to cut some slack for head refs. I firmly believe (and want to continue) that head refs don't show favoritism! or just that all head refs are not same!

Re: Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11
 

How is that any different than an elite team appealing a normal ref's call to the Head Ref? At all? Even slightly? Why is favoritism assumed to be more likely from FIRST HQ than from a local referee, who might actually have ties to a local team?

This argument still doesn't make any sense to me. It's like saying a booth review ruins the integrity of NFL field referees. It's like saying an appeals court ruins the integrity of a lower court. It is possible for someone to have authority if a decision is reviewable by someone higher. I don't honestly get how "integrity" changes at all - if anything, the ref has more integrity as they *couldn't* get away with a favoritist call if they wanted to (not that I assume any head ref would).

The only thing this will result in is more accurate calls, and maybe a little wasted time. How will anything about the event change if the Head Ref can be overturned? I don't see any actual lasting consequence here.