Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

So the rules should be disregarded because its the finals?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Sure. Find out that the robot is too tall early on Wednesday inspections and keep that fact in your back-pocket until you need to use it.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

The too-high rollers!
In all seriousness, I find it ridiculous that the refs ruled them too tall. Why were they too tall during the last match, but not too tall for any other matches, when nothing changed? Does consistency not matter at all?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

They ruled that our our arms were illegal in their extended state because the outside corner was above 78" (even though at inspection they were deemed legal) getting under what they claimed to be legal height would have been as simple as pressing a button on the solenoid.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

My argument is quite the opposite. As others have quoted, a quick fix remedy should be allowed, but I can somewhat understand the referees disabling a robot during qualifications, to keep on pace.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Hold on there. Let's try to keep any accusations to ourselves unless we have actual evidence. I'm just as disappointed with the ruling as you are, but we need to keep our heads level.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

So then a "quick fix" should only be allowed in the finals?

Rules should be the same the entire regional. In this instance, I guess the refs ruled the fix to not be "quick".

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

It's certainly possible they were too tall in only the final match, due to any number of factors, while having passed inspection at the correct height.

They may just have needed to tweak something to bring the robot back within height...but they obviously weren't given that chance.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Actually when I said that, I was quoting someone who was referencing 2613 being disabled for being over the landfill. That is unarguably a quick fix as intended by the rules. I stand by what I said about 987, and if they passed inspection in that configuration then it should have been legal. Idk why an inspector would spontaneously inspect a previously approved configuration...

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

This was just ridiculous. It's totally unfair to disable a robot that slightly sticks into the landfill, on th grounds that moving it is not a "quick fix".
Plus, if a robot gets inspected, and a member from 987 posted that nothing changed, there shhould be an outstanding reason to disable one of the most powerful teams at a reiognal in only the very last match of the finals.

A similar situation happened to us in 2014. An alumni of the team actually inspected our robot and okayed it before elims. We go onto the field and lo and behold- the same guy says that we have to remove part of our robot in order to play.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Refs can call for another inspection if they deem it necessary. Its not rare, but its not common either.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Well Chad987 from that team said that the bot was too tall, and too tall is too tall. If the inspection team missed it then that's unfortunate. Too bad it had to wait to be found in the last match. Sorry 987.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Wait, he said it passed inspection without modifications after that. The rules only say that it has to pass inspection, not follow all the terms surrounding inspection.
The rule is clearly woreded that way to prevent this exact situation from occurring.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

This was clearly not done. I don't see how it's possible to disable a robot on the field when there was no re-inspection how do they know i did not see them out on the field with a tape measure?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I think this instance points toward changing the rules to always give the offending team the chance to remedy the situation. Say you get 30 seconds, and if you're not done by then you will be disabled.
Bottom line, it shouldn't be the referees' responsibility to decide whether a team is able to perform an undefined task on its own robot within an unspecified amount of time. That's not on the referees, it's a matter of making the rules less ambiguous.