Originally Posted by ZehP (Post 1374596)

So this basically means that we'll be filling out a form every time we make a change to the robot? That isn't too big of a deal.

Now if only we could get our programmers to do that :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1374602)

It will be interesting to see how we're going to be tracking reinspections. As I'm sure everyone can agree, teams make changes or repairs at competition all the time - the work seems to never stop, and just walking around the pits for 5 minutes shows me at least a dozen teams who are doing something that needs reinspection - and an hour later, it'll be a different dozen! This poses some interesting paperwork issues, in that we'll possibly be generating a lot of additional paper to keep track of it!

I know at my regionals, I have inspectors stationed at 3 spots Friday and Saturday - in the queueing line, at the field, and at the inspection station. This means teams can get reinspected when they ask, AND that every team gets a small reinspection before every match AND that every team that breaks on the field has an inspector following them back to their pit to ensure the repair or replacement is reinspected immediately (often because the inspector is helping the team do the repair or figure out what to do!). If we have to keep track of paperwork for all of these reinspections at a regional... yikes! I certainly hope that FIRST can come up with a wireless, computerized solution for us (something like the NI Parkway app so inspectors can document reinspections quickly right from their smartphone or tablet!).

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1374602)

I certainly hope that FIRST can come up with a wireless, computerized solution for us (something like the NI Parkway app so inspectors can document reinspections quickly right from their smartphone or tablet!).

Originally Posted by Ben Martin (Post 1374607)

Funny that you should mention this--the inspectors at Springside-Chestnut Hill and MAR Champs were using tablets with some sort of inspection app. We weren't given any forms to sign, just a sticker when we were done. There were a bunch of features, including a nice diagram of all the teams on a pit map and where they stood in the inspection process.

Maybe they were piloting something? Really not sure.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1374609)

I heard there was a pilot of a new event management app in MAR... you never know if pilots will be successful and adopted, or fail and be set aside though - I certainly hope it was successful!

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1374608)

I'm glad Frank has cleared this up.

It still concerns me that there seems to be a precedent set here where a team can be retroactively DQ'ed for being in violation of a robot rule.

T6 seems to have been taken to the extreme and interpreted to mean that if a team is ever in a condition where they would not currently pass inspection (but were previously inspected), they can be DQ'ed from a match at any point in time thereafter.

My interpretation of the rule is that a team must have passed initial inspection in order to play and that any condition that puts them out of compliance with the rules must be remedied as soon as it is called to their attention, before they can go on the field again, per G4

Perhaps a Q&A is appropriate here.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1374609)

I heard there was a pilot of a new event management app in MAR... you never know if pilots will be successful and adopted, or fail and be set aside though - I certainly hope it was successful!

Originally Posted by Ben Martin (Post 1374607)

Funny that you should mention this--the inspectors at Springside-Chestnut Hill and MAR Champs were using tablets with some sort of inspection app. We weren't given any forms to sign, just a sticker when we were done. There were a bunch of features, including a nice diagram of all the teams on a pit map and where they stood in the inspection process.

Maybe they were piloting something? Really not sure.

Originally Posted by Orion.DeYoe (Post 1374973)

Second of all, the media got involved. Every one of us here in the 21st century should know the kind of damage that the media can do to an organization/individual's reputation. We should also be aware that a ruined reputation for a robotics team will interfere with it's ability to gain and retain sponsors as well as their ability to inspire further generations to become involved with STEM (which, may I remind you, is FIRST's entire mission)
I think that the way FIRST handld the repercussions of this decision were very inadequate. FIRST needs to write a press release to defend the reputation of these teams as well as writing each of their sponsors to explain the situation. It is FIRST's responsibility to make sure that the damage to a few teams' reputation doesn't cause these teams permanent harm as well a to prevent the bad reputation to spread to other teams and the organization as a whole.

Originally Posted by Steven Donow (Post 1374985)

Media getting involved is nothing FIRST is liable for...heck, I didn't even know about it until the blog post, FIRST probably didn't know about it until recently, so its not like it was a CNN headline

Originally Posted by Steven Donow (Post 1374985)

Media getting involved is nothing FIRST is liable for...heck, I didn't even know about it until the blog post, FIRST probably didn't know about it until recently, so its not like it was a CNN headline

Originally Posted by Abhishek R (Post 1374996)

It was a local media organization, so you would not have heard of it. Does that mean it's OK, just because it wasn't a large headline across FIRST? The image painted of 233 was very negative. I saw a slideshow that had photos of Pink's members doing various things at the competition from repairs in the pit to playing matches with the caption at the bottom of every slide along the lines of "The team was disqualified from the competition for not following the rules." Just because you didn't know about it does not mean no one was affected.

EDIT: I was typing this as Chris made his post. Exactly my point.

Originally Posted by Abhishek R (Post 1374996)

It was a local media organization, so you would not have heard of it. Does that mean it's OK, just because it wasn't a large headline across FIRST? The image painted of 233 was very negative. I saw a slideshow that had photos of Pink's members doing various things at the competition from repairs in the pit to playing matches with the caption at the bottom of every slide along the lines of "The team was disqualified from the competition for not following the rules." Just because you didn't know about it does not mean no one was affected.

EDIT: I was typing this as Chris made his post. Exactly my point.

Originally Posted by Orion.DeYoe (Post 1374973)

Second of all, the media got involved. Every one of us here in the 21st century should know the kind of damage that the media can do to an organization/individual's reputation. We should also be aware that a ruined reputation for a robotics team will interfere with it's ability to gain and retain sponsors as well as their ability to inspire further generations to become involved with STEM (which, may I remind you, is FIRST's entire mission).
I think that the way FIRST handled the repercussions of this decision were very inadequate. FIRST needs to write a press release to defend the reputation of these teams as well as writing each of their sponsors to explain the situation. It is FIRST's responsibility to make sure that the damage to a few teams' reputation doesn't cause these teams permanent harm as well a to prevent the bad reputation to spread to other teams and the organization as a whole.

Originally Posted by Orion.DeYoe (Post 1374973)

First of all, the "reinspection process" is NOT well-defined in the manual and as such a team has no way of knowing the magnitude of change that requires reinspection (do we need to get an inspector every time we change tread on the wheels?). Team's should not be made to suffer for FIRST's inability and refusal to define many rules properly. A team would have to be obviously and purposefully cheating before I would advocate a ruling like this.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1375278)

How is that not well defined? ANY change to the robot, except those expressly permitted per T8, requires a reinspection. The problem is teams simply don't follow this rule. ...snip..

And yes, reinspections should include replacing tread on wheels - that is the main part of the robot that interacts with the carpet, ...snip...

These reinspections are not cursory, they are not lighter or less rigorous than the initial inspection. The only difference is the scope - we don't have to worry about the entire robot any more, just the small area where the change was made.

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.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1375469)

Your response really points out the weakness (and danger) of the rules in this situation.

Any reasonable person from outside would agree, no. A team can't be red-carded because the LRI made a mistake.

The rules need to remove the red card penalty, OR streamline the process and make it more fair/consistent to teams.

Certainly either way the LRI shouldn't be able to accidentally entrap teams into losing.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1375469)

Your response really points out the weakness (and danger) of the rules in this situation.

Any reasonable person from outside would agree, no. A team can't be red-carded because the LRI made a mistake.

The rules need to remove the red card penalty, OR streamline the process and make it more fair/consistent to teams.

Certainly either way the LRI shouldn't be able to accidentally entrap teams into losing.

Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1375483)

The rules already read like that. The red card is for participating in a match with an uninspected or a robot that has been modified so it is no longer in compliance with the rules & not reinspected should get red carded.


T7 Covers inspected robots that become non-complaint. Bumpers falling off gets you disabled, not red carded.

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1375489)

But that's the thing, you can get a red card even if you've been inspected. It's happened multiple times, both in Orlando and in CVR last year. The rules don't read like that to the people making these decisions.

Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1375502)

The issue at Orlando (at least how Franks blogs reads) is that the Head Referee thought the robot had not been reinspected after the modification. If that was the case then you get a red card. T6 black & white. What is not clear to me is how much & what they discussed with the DQed alliance before making that decision. I was not there & likewise please do not take my comments as judgmental.

What I hope comes out of this is First puts out re-inspection process that is workable. Franks' blog says they are working on this.

Originally Posted by T6

A Team is only permitted to participate in a Qualification or Elimination MATCH and receive Qualification Points if their ROBOT has passed Inspection. If it is discovered after the start of the MATCH that a ROBOT did not pass Inspection and the Team participated in the MATCH, the entire ALLIANCE receives a RED CARD for that MATCH.

Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1375502)

The issue at Orlando (at least how Franks blogs reads) is that the Head Referee thought the robot had not been reinspected after the modification.

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1375522)

Thus I think it is a stretch to make T6 all encompassing and suddenly say that it applies to any instance in which a robot may be non-compliant with the rules.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1375448)

Yes, that's the system I have. 2-3 inspectors at the inspection desk for when a team needs to ask for help/reinspection, 2-3 inspectors in the queue to check on teams as they come through, and the rest watching the field/field exit.

When a team breaks on the field or has other issues (disabled due to frame perimeter or bumpers, cRio or radio reboot, etc), and inspector follows them back to the pit to work with them - this ensures that the repair/fix is not only legal, but it gets inspected immediately. That inspector, since he is already in the pits, then goes to the inspection desk and relieves one of the inspectors there. This prevents an inspector from getting bored sitting at the desk all day (most of the inspectors I work with are pretty active and want to either be working with a team or watching a match, not twiddling their thumbs at the desk). That inspector then goes and relieves one of the guys in the queueing line. That way you don't have the same inspector looking at the robots the whole day - if an inspector misses something once, they're likely to miss it a second time. Changing out the inspectors helps to make sure stuff gets caught. From there, the inspector goes back to the field/field exit and starts the cycle all over again.

It's the best way I can come up with of catching issues, helping teams avoid issues while on the field, ensuring we pro-actively show up to inspect for teams who are likely to be doing something that needs an inspection, and being available for teams who ask for it.

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 Cory (Post 1375522)

There is zero precedent before the last two years to say this is the case. I have seen numerous cases of teams that were non-compliant with the rules during a qualification match that were told to remedy the situation before going out again, but never have I seen a team that got inspected and was temporarily non-compliant be DQ'ed after the fact (besides 973 last year, but that could be considered an isolated event and not a change in policy).

The precedent was only set this year when HQ decided specifically that this was the appropriate action to take (or backed up the Head Ref).

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1375546)

...they would ask each and every team, every time, "what did you change?" and then make judgement based on their answer + the robot appearance.

Originally Posted by Steve W (Post 1375567)

I felt really bad for the alliance partners and 1 team was involved with both DQ's. I read and re-read the rules and next morning (Saturday) I spoke with the FTA and Head Ref. I requested a ruling from HQ on the DQ's to the 4 teams not in violation of the rules. I pleaded my case to the FTA who took it to HQ. Final ruling, only the robots that had made the modifications got a Red Card and the other robots got their points back.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1375363)

Here's the team's description of what happened: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=124

In short... They took off part of their robot and replaced it with 2 FRC batteries to act as ballast. They asked an inspector before they made the modification, and after it was done got reweighed and the inspector said it was all good.

They then competed like that in two matches, the opposing alliance challenged it based on their understanding from the rules that having multiple batteries on the robot was illegal, and those involved in the decision (the head ref, FTA, and LRI) were not aware of and had no way to show that the team had passed reinspection - from their point of view, the team competed with an illegal robot, and as a result the alliance was disqualified from the two matches they won, and lost their chance to compete in the semifinals.

Read through the thread linked for more information, there are a few posts from the teams involved on both sides,with both alliances unhappy with the eventual outcome.

Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1375502)

The issue at Orlando (at least how Franks blogs reads) is that the Head Referee thought the robot had not been reinspected after the modification. If that was the case then you get a red card. T6 black & white. What is not clear to me is how much & what they discussed with the DQed alliance before making that decision. I was not there & likewise please do not take my comments as judgmental.

What I hope comes out of this is First puts out re-inspection process that is workable. Franks' blog says they are working on this.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz (Post 1375621)

We will be using a form similar to that posted earlier in this thread. The team does not fill out or handle the paperwork. Re-inspections need to be carried out in the pit during qualifying. Following lunch on Saturday, we will move the paperwork and re-inspections out to the dome and carry the paperwork with us. We will have all documentation available during eliminations.