Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Actually thats exactly what they did. I went back to see if anything was said or done and they actually did measure it with a tape measure on the field.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Surely you don't believe this is true? You can pass inspection, but actually be non-compliant with the rules because the inspector either missed something, or the robot was damaged/tweaked during gameplay, causing a situation where it is out of compliance. You still have to fix it...you don't just get a free pass because you passed inspection.

The issue here isn't that 987 was discovered to be non-compliant after passing inspection and changing nothing. It is that they were not given a reasonable amount of time (as the rules call for) to remedy the situation and were instead immediately disabled.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Agreed 100%
They wouldn't even tell us whether or not we were disabled. The only way we knew was when the robot did not move in auto.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Of course you should be following the rules at all times (I'm not disputing that) but if an inspector passes the robot and nobody knows about any rules being broken, it just seems very unfair to rule it illegal in the deciding match of the competition.
I was thinking of rule T8:
"A Team is only permitted to participate in a Qualification or Playoff MATCH and receive Match Points if their ROBOT has passed
Inspection.
VIOLATION: If prior to the start of the MATCH, the ROBOT is not eligible to participate in the MATCH. If after the start of the
MATCH, the entire ALLIANCE receives a RED CARD for that MATCH."
It mentions only passing inspection.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Just because you pass inspection doesnt give you a clean pass for the remainder of the regional. What he's saying is, through gameplay, your robot may expand; however that may come to happen. And if it is not noticed by the team, but is noticed by the refs, they can chose to inspect it on the spot.

If it is deemed illegal then, it is illegal; while still having passed inspection.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

The sudden disable isn't an isolated incident in Dallas. This happened numerous times at North Star Regional last year and significantly affected the rankings and eliminations. It's incredibly frustrating and disheartening to see a team's elimination and qualification matches ruined based on a draconian interpretation of a highly ambiguous rule, particularly without any sort of notification or warning. I can understand wanting to speed matches along, but when the fix is as simple as releasing a solenoid or removing a game-piece, it's getting a bit too ridiculous.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I don't think whether or not the rules being enforced at all times is what's really being debated, I think the focus is more on whether or not it was fair to just disable them and start the match instead of giving them some time to resolve the issue.

In the past, we've always been told when a referee had an issue with our robot and given the opportunity to quickly fix it. It seems like that isn't the case this year (or at least in Dallas). It would be nice to get some sort of clarification for that from HQ.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

There is no clarification needed. See G7. It explicitly states that teams are to be given the opportunity to quickly remedy the situation to become compliant, with disabling being a last resort.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I'm speechless. This is completely inappropriate. No matter what you think of the ruling (which I completely disagree with, for the record), not taking the time to inform the team of their disablement is neither gracious, nor professional.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

This brings back memories from last year... I had a referee from North Star come to me to complain about how teams were being treated - not being told they would be disabled before a match started because they were out of the starting configuration.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

After reading that these things are not unusual and have happened before, I am curious to know if the refs that are in charge of making these calls are ever held liable to their decisions. There is a lot at stake in these competitions and for the sake of transparency, I believe there really should be a thorough investigation into this matter. Just my two cents.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Should there be an investigation? Yes. Should the refs be investigated? Yes. Were the things that happened both un-GP to 987 and rather unfair in general? Yes. But remember, the refs are volunteers.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

If the goal of FIRST is to inspire, then the ref who pulled this one did the exact opposite. Things like this make teams regret ever participating. 987 surely worked extremely hard putting this bot together, just like all other teams, and their robot came out great. To see their hard work ruined by an egregious, hasty move made from a judge is awful.

I'm sad.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

The volunteer thing is always a cop out. They're volunteers...that don't have to be invited back next year.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

People need to realize that things like this happen everywhere throughout FIRST. And it's really, really bad. Although this is a competition, people need to realize that the most important thing is the students learning and having a good time. Mentor built robots are awful. Not awful technically always, but awful as they ruin students ability to learn. Many teams have mentors who disrespect students, or don't let any students do the work. The thing is, there's also teams who don't, and we need to be able to distinguish from the two.
When it comes down to the competition, what's more important? Shutting down a robot without notifying the team, and possibly discouraging the students from STEM careers?
Or giving them a bit to sort it out, and allowing them to run the robot that they worked hard on for 6 weeks.

Valid point. In all honesty, I'm pretty sure that if a volunteer is being un-GP, someone would gladly take their spot, say as ref.