Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1375341)

What is not well defined is exactly what is an "re-inspection" & how it gets documented. T8 speaks to modification not repairs. Just when a repair becomes a modification is a judgement call not all defined by the rules. If you expect robots to be reinspected after every repair, then the process is fundamentally flawed & you can't fault teams for not following it a 100%. You are also going to need a lot more inspectors. The other Frank says the process is going to get some attention. I am expecting positive changes.

Removing a mechanism present during the original inspection does not trigger a need for re inspection per T8. Adding the ballast to compensate would require reinspection. As a side note reinstalling the mechanism if the ballast + mechanism exceeded the allowed robot weight would probably be against the rules.

Originally Posted by sanddrag (Post 1375353)

I missed it? What exactly was the issue with the one robot? Were they out of compliance with robot construction rules, or overweight or something?

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV (Post 1375358)

The current rule set is incomplete, if any team were to follow it to the letter they would need to be reinspected just prior to every match. Currently having wheels wear down at all, which happens in every match, would need to be reinspected or having your robot scratched during a match those are modifications that happen after inspection. T8 only refers to MECHANISMS being removed/added/reconfigured not to individual parts being modified.
snip

Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1375390)

You are right. T10 is the rule addressing modification. I guess the question is when is a repair a modification? What about software that affects appendages? Anyway going with your definition we should scratch pretty much all the teams that qualified for worlds with the robot? (insert friendly sarcasm smiley here) If you are calling every change a modification, I guess that would include bent frames & damage from the competition. The rabbit hole gets deep fast.

The rules should be read with this in mind.


Even so the process needs to be better defined so teams know what qualifies as an re-inspection & when is it really required.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1375396)

Magnets -
Look at it from the perspective of the Robot Rules - if whatever is being done possibly impacts a Robot Rule (from an inspectors perspective), then you need a reinspection. This includes removing item's/material (we need to make sure the removal doesn't create/expose a sharp edge, leave an exposed wire touching the frame, etc), adding items or material (similar concerns as removal, including other concerns like the starting configuration), or performing adjustments to existing items on the robot that have the potential to create an issue (starting configuration, height, safety).

So generally speaking, tightening a bolt that has worked its way loose isn't going to be a problem, so long as tightening it does not alter the configuration the robot was inspected in (for example, I can envision a robot design where a bolt can be adjusted to move a piece in or out to alter the configuration, which may expose sharp edges or affect the starting configuration... that would need a reinspection).

It is impossible to create a list of what actions do/do not require a reinspection. We trust teams to act in good faith and to generally not make changes at an event that would cause an issue. However, stuff happens, and that's why I always try to have inspectors in high-profile places like queueing and watching the field to help ensure we catch everything as it happens.

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1375413)

Here's a dumb idea. What if there was one or two inspectors in queueing, asking teams what repairs or modifications they did? It would take for the most part 15 seconds per team. No big change would go unnoticed. No confusion over whether or not a team was reviewed by an inspector. No worrying about if you have to fill out paperwork for a tread change - just tell the queueing inspector and if you need to do something (paperwork, weight) they'll let you know.

Inspectors already hang around during the day anyway. With 10 inspectors for an event each would only need to do 2 hours a day tops. Maybe this is a lot to ask, but it's better than the current system, where a team can apparently go from being told that they don't have to do anything else and they're "good to go" to being disqualified.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1375448)

But towards the point of Frank's blog post (and Allen's last post)... even with my method there's room for confusion and misunderstandings. A team could make it through all of that and still compete with something I would find blatantly illegal, and it would be difficult to track it back to the inspector that passed it, and even more difficult to ensure the inspector remembers passing it. Additional documentation can certainly help avoid situations like what happened in Orlando, so long as we don't go overboard and make that documentation a pain that no one wants to deal with. Doing it with the computerized system that was tested in MAR sounds like it could work out very nicely.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1375452)

Hypothetical.

Lets say you, as the LRI, pass a team. Later, they are found to be have been illegal (even though you passed them as such). Does this warrant a red card?

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1375452)

Hypothetical.

Lets say you, as the LRI, pass a team. Later, they are found to be have been illegal (even though you passed them as such). Does this warrant a red card?

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1375452)

Hypothetical.

Lets say you, as the LRI, pass a team. Later, they are found to be have been illegal (even though you passed them as such). Does this warrant a red card?

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1375465)

It's a difficult situation, to be sure. The rulebook says:


(section 5.5.2 of the Tournament Rules)

It also says:

(Section 5.5.3 of the Tournament Rules)

Further, the FTA is the official representative of FIRST and the GDC at an event. Those three people, essentially, have all the power in determining how the event goes, and the boundaries between them aren't always clear. That's why it's important that those three people get along and have an understanding :)

So on to the question... If I personally pass someone in the queueing line and there's something I missed, then it's a bad situation all around. Given the scenario we're dealing with, lets assume that the issue is brought to the Head Ref's attention (either a ref notices something that doesn't look right or a team on the other alliance challenges it). At that point, the Head Ref is well within his rights to take appropriate action - if it's before the match, disabling a robot, if it's after DQing the team (based on his understanding of the Game rules as they pertain to the field). Obviously, this is NOT the preferred outcome!

In my experience, if issues are noticed on the field early in an event, the head ref warns the team and gets a note to me to talk with them. That's why my inspectors are standing at the exit - they're within hailing distance of the refs, and (especially this year) the refs can easily task them with getting something fixed on a robot.

The later we get in an event, the more likely I am to be at the field. Issues have been worked out in the pits, my inspectors know their jobs and are doing them, and I'm free to keep an eye on things around the field. It also makes it very easy for the Head Ref to find me to consult about an inspection question! If the question is directly related to something I said was OK, then I am automatically fighting for the team. At that point, I feel it's not the team's fault and the team shouldn't suffer in their current match because of my mistake - although that's the only match they get a pass in, they have to fix it for all future matches! Depending on the issue, sometimes the head ref agrees, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes it becomes a discussion with myself, the Head Ref, and the FTA to find the most appropriate solution. Regardless, if I know (which is really the key point when it comes to the issue in Orlando) the fault was mine or one of my inspectors, I argue on behalf of the affected team, and try to make sure that the match in question isn't counted against them.

We're all there to make it a great event for every team. That means we have to play by the rules, and treat every team fairly. It can be very difficult to do that when you have to make a decision that will benefit one team while harming another, as almost any field decision does. None of these decisions are made lightly, and each one is handled on a case-by-case basis as the particulars are often important.