G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I am surprised that FIRST had NOTHING to say about rule G10 in light of the fiasco (yes, I think we can call it a fiasco) that happened in Dallas Week 1.

Seriously, if ever a rule needed some clarification, it seems like this one does.

G10 DRIVE TEAMS may not cause significant or repeated delays to the start of a MATCH.
VIOLATION: The offending ROBOT will be DISABLED

Not to mention this jewel of a rule penumbra in the blue box: "DRIVE TEAMS are expected to stage their ROBOTS for a MATCH safely and swiftly. As a guideline, ROBOTS should be configurable in fewer than sixty (60) seconds."

What should teams plan on for Week 2 and beyond? Will the Dallas Disable become the norm? Should the crowd start a countdown chant for each robot?

Seriously though, I am really surprised that FIRST has not spoken up on this topic.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

They posted a blog about investigating particularly this situation further.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

As the Blog says, they are still gathering information, and "will have more to share once the facts are in."

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I'm not sure what there is to say about the rule, they clearly state a 60 second setup limit, the strictness of enforcement is up to the head ref.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I agree - it's a little unclear what G10 really means.

If it's referring to simply taking too long to set up your robot (and I have a hunch that's what the GDC was going for), then that's to be expected - if one team is causing the whole event to run late, then perhaps they should be disabled for a match. However, if a team is, through its actions, causing the refs and other field personnel to hold matches to ensure the robot's legality (what happened in Dallas), then it gets fuzzier.

In some ways, it would be good for this rule to apply even then, as it would force teams to make robots that are easily proven to be safe and within the rules. However, in other ways, it would stifle creativity - many robots every year are right up against the legal limit, and if teams thought they could be disabled for an almost-illegal-but-not-quite robot, the amount of variety in robot designs would decrease significantly.

So yes - it would be nice to see a clarification on G10.

EDIT: a few people ninja'd me. I think the clarification is necessary as to who held the match up - the team, via their actions setting up the robot, or the field crew, checking that the robot was within the rules.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Could you explain what happened exactly? It sounds like the intent of the GDC was to allow a wide variety of robots, but they didn't want teams to delay matches when assembling their robot. I know week one events are usually slow (the event I watched was 1 1/2 hours behind at points!), but I can see the same happening with teams. As the season goes on, they'll get better at assembling their robot quickly and safely.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Let me be clear about my surprise. IN GENERAL, I think it is bad for FIRST to have the mood of a head ref. determining who wins a tournament or not. And that is exactly what we have as far as I can see.

The rules should be clear enough to both the participants and those enforcing the rules that every regional anywhere on the planet is playing the same game.

That was not the case last weekend.

I would have thought that FIRST would have quickly responded to this situation.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Prior to finals match 3 at the Dallas Regional, 987 was disabled for being too tall.

EDIT: they were also disabled in the semis for supposedly taking too long to set up, thanks Abishek R.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Did you play last year's game at all? The mood of the head ref definitely played a huge factor. Heck, whether assists were counted depended on where on the field it occurred with some refs not counting assists and others counting them.

I'm sure I could find examples of this going back many years. FIRST's rules are not, never have been, and never will be perfect.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

It's important to note that the sixty second guideline (not rule) is in a blue box. The standard blue box disclaimer makes them somewhat useless. The referee can always tell you that a rule takes precedence and can ignore the blue box legally. The same goes for any q and a response that doesn't make it into a team update.

At the beginning of the manual, this disclaimer about blue boxes is posted inside of a blue box.
This weakens the power of the blue box significantly. In addition, the blue box has 60 seconds as a guideline.

A team may delay the start of the match, even if it takes them less than 60 sixty seconds to set up. If the match would have normally started 30 seconds after the robots were placed on the field (not likely), and you force them to wait sixty seconds, you have delayed the match. If you do this twice, it's a repeated delay.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

No, they were disabled during the semifinals for supposedly taking too long to set up as well, I believe. I don't recall that rule ever being enforced which resulted in a disable or any warning being given about it prior to when it happened. It was pretty unexpected when it became an issue.

Also, when does that 60 seconds start? Right when the gates open? After we're done waiting for the yellow totes to be set back up by referees since teams may not change the position of the autonomous game pieces, so that we can line our robots up with them?

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...hes-resolution

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

The 60 second number is a blue box guideline, not any actual definition. As a guideline, refs would be free to be lenient during Quals and suddenly decide there's a time crunch and start being more strict during Elims. Dr. Joe is quite right that this rule is extremely vague and subjective as currently implemented and enforced. Even if we stipulate that 60 seconds is the actual limit, there's open questions:

1. When does the time start?
2. When does the time end?
3. How does it affect G10 if you declare order of robot placement matters and teams have to alternate robot placement?
4. How does it affect G10 if there are delays due to previous teams or field reset?

If refs are going to start disabling teams for G10 with little or no warning, then there needs to be a MUCH better definition of what constitutes delaying a match. As it is, it appears refs could punitively disable your robot if you decide robot placement order matters for ALL of your matches and all your matches end up positioning robots Red-Blue-Red-Blue-Red-Blue and taking 4-5 minutes to start because of it.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Personally I'm looking forward to pushing past my alliance partners to be first on the field so they can be disabled not me!

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

My bad. The finals disable has just been a more visible one than the semis.

I believe that it starts the moment your robot's wheels touch the carpet.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

If so we are going to be seeing some assembly while two people are holding the robot off the carpet.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

So glad I'm not playing with you at least so far this season.

I'm also glad our robot requires no adjustment from transport configuration so we can avoid these setup time issues.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I hope not. It was in an email from Kevin Ross (PNW Chairman), and it's not in the Manual, so unless someone has something more official, hopefully this won't happen.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Along similar lines...Transport Configuration.

I'm curious how it was enforced and implemented in other areas of the country. In South Florida- teams were permitted to exit Transport Configuration once they reached the on-deck queue boxes.

Will this be the norm? Is this how it was done in other venues?

-Brando

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

This was allowed at PNW Oregon City for the entire weekend, and I heard that it was happening at PNW Auburn-Mountainview late Friday since they were running 2 hours behind. PNWFIRST has stated that FIRST approved this as a temporary thing, so don't plan on it for Week 2 events. It could happen at some events, but I think it was a Week 1 thing.

The head ref at the Indy event gave us a warning about us taking to long during set up.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

The SAFE expansion outside of transport configuration early in the queue is one tool events have this year to help them maintain schedule. Schedule wasn't an issue at Lake Superior this weekend, but it was across the hall at Northern Lights (due to field issues, not team issues). For those two events specifically, we hold an exhibition "Double DECCer" playoff match between the winners of both fields. So while Northern Lights was trying to catch up on Saturday (even playing matches through lunch), Lake Superior was slowing things down so they would both end roughly at the same time.

As I understand it, utilizing this tool is at the discretion of the event, based on the needs of the event. If there's no need, then I doubt it'll be used.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

An email from Kevin Ross (PNW Chairman) stated that this practice would not be permitted in our week 2 event and that we were expected to strictly abide by the limit. I have also gotten word (indirectly) from the head ref of that event that the 60 second time limit will be enforced.

I really don't think it's a big deal: We knew it would be an issue on day 1 and made design decisions about our robot knowing that the time limit would exist - albeit we did not know how much lenience there would be. If a veteran team creates a robot that simply cannot be assembled in less than, say, 90 seconds, they should be warned, then disabled. We have to play by the rules. If it is a rookie team, perhaps a little more patience would be wise - though not in elimination matches.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Has an MC ever managed to damage a robot while introducing the teams?

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

The 60 second setup time can be brutal, teams often took way longer than that in previous years with no transport config.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

At Northern Lights, we didn't end up relaxing the transport configuration rule as we only ran an hour behind and teams were pretty good about setup time. There were some laggards, but we communicated with them and they got better.

Going longer than 60 seconds is a risk, not a rule. During quals, when the event is an hour behind and your robot is in the #3 box -- more likely to be an issue. During practice matches -- less risky.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

A big challenge this year comes in the semifinals.
Teams need time to be able to tether (although I read somewhere you cant?) to reset their robots, fill air tanks and do other software/mechanical checks and setups prior to playing another match.

What happens if you play back-back matches during the round robin 3 matches?
Some teams at IE were rushing to get going again because of this.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Well 5.6.6 in the game manual says that in the playoffs if an alliance plays back to back matches, the Head Ref WILL issue a field timeout. This doesn't just apply in the finals, but in the semis and quarters as well. So if required to play back to back, there will be a 6 minute field timeout in between.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

For these matches we were supposed to take a formal field time out, but we didn't get clarification on this until after the event (we still gave essentially the same amount of time to the teams)- that being said, it's still a very tight turn-around. The tethering is somewhat addressed in the latest game update - with expressed permission from FTA or referee it is allowed.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

The manual has been updated to explicitly allow this (I remember it being implicitly allowed at previous competitions).

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Mmmmmm........

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

So week 2 teams are supposed to strictly abide by the 60 second limit. So, once (the previous match ends/previous teams exit the field/a team enters the field/sets their robot down/field reset completes) the team has 60 seconds to (finish setting up/exit the field/be behind the alliance wall). Glad Kevin Ross has cleared that up.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

This is another disaster waiting to happen - a classic over reaction. Are all refs gonna start the count at the same time? What are the criteria for starting the count? This is the reason the 60 seconds was in a blue box to begin with - so the ref could exercise discretion, wisdom and GP.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

2012 and 2013, those rules were perfect, completely undebatable objective scoring, no subjectivity to it. This years game is pretty good about objective scoring, but a lot of the other rules are awfully subjective and up to the refs.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Protected LOADING ZONE rules. G18-1 vs. G30.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

That's not really true. In 2012, the protected loading zones and bridges had some controversial calls. The definition of a bridge (troll bots!) and grasp/grapple/grab (118's bridge mechanism) were "subjectively" interpreted.

In 2013, there were several calls that upset people relating to interfering with climbing. IIRC, a team fell off the tower and gave another alliance a penalty when the other alliance did not cause the fall.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Trust me, we remember that incident quite well.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

No doubt true and true of most any game, contest or contract. It is nearly impossible to write a set of rules that are perfectly unambiguous to every party. Subject the rules or criteria to a bunch of genius nit-picking engineers and it is often not pretty!

Many times I've been part of proposal teams where the engineers, younger versions of myself included, get way too pedantic. Some times common sense is the way to go - ask the customer (in this case the GDC) how they intended the game be played or the contract be bid. In this case Frank has spoken for FIRST and spoken wisely (in my opinion).

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I prefer to think of myself, my students, and all the other teams as the customer... because you know, the giant stacks of cash we give FIRST every year.

The "Team Experience" is very important, and the fact that we pay so much to compete makes it harder to let things slide.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

^THIS^

Frank gets it; Team Experience. If the volunteers think that the Team Experience will be enhanced by counting the timer at some arbitrary time and counting 60 seconds, then they don't get it. I hope the week 2 volunteer leaders at each event are smarter than this.

If not, then I have some questions:

1. When does the 2 minutes start?
2. What if field reset people are in the way?
3. What if the person timing the 60 seconds isn't using a stop watch?
4. What if my robot doesn't get on the field until 30 seconds after your robot? When does the time start then? Are there multiple time keepers?

We are asked to understand the intent of a rule so I ask the same of the volunteers. We do not want unnecessary delays because of setting up potentially gangly robots. A stop watch is not necessary.

I am really interested in what Frank and the rest of the GDC intended for this rule.

Someone really needs to go through match footage and look at how much time teams took last year. I bet the average was more than 1 minute from the time the robot broke the plane of the field border and the time the last drive team member left the field.

Paul

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

How I preferred to enforce the rule at IE:

If you were the last team setting up on my side of the field, I'd be standing nearby watching. Nothing like a striped shirt watching you to indicate that maybe you need to move faster.

We never did call anybody though--one or two teams did take a while, but no call was made (particularly if they'd had a really fast turnaround). That might be because we were pretty much on schedule throughout the event.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

In a real sense, of course, you are correct. We are all paying FIRST but then large components of FIRST are volunteers.

But that is not how the game itself is played. Our "customer" gives us a set of design criteria on the first Saturday and we have 6+ weeks to design, construct and test a product. In the context of the game, FIRST and the GDC is the customer.

On the higher plane (where we are paying big $$$), Frank has spoken for FIRST promising just what you ask for. Maybe it is time to move on?

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Although teams should supply their own tether.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Glad to see the tethering update, I remember at Indy a red card was given for such (I was the scorekeeper who had to enter it).

IMHO (my opinion alone), it was a somewhat lame red card to be given, but G14 was G14, cut and dry. Live and learn, the rules take few exceptions.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

First, what Jon Stratis and Paul Copioli said.

At the MAR event where I am LRI, if we are running behind I will ask to allow teams to exit Transport Configuration in queue, where there is little risk to the general public. But if all is running smoothly*, then it'll be enforced pit to field....keeping the team experience in mind. No need for Transport Configuration Police.

*Yeah, when will that ever happen? :p

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

The issue we ran into at Lake Superior is that often times teams don't want to turn on their robot until after they have finished getting out of their transport configuration, as working on the robot while it is on can present a safety issue.

However, what this means, is that we significantly increase the cycle time, because the flow for teams goes something like this and nothing can happen in parallel:

1. Get robot on the field
2. Exit transport configuration (up to 60 seconds)
3. Position robot in the correct location (we all know some teams can take a long time here)
4. Turn on robot and get back to driver station

G10 has been around for a while, primarily to minimize the effect of #3.
#4 can also be excruciatingly slow.

If we assume each of these tasks takes about a minute, that plus the match takes up pretty much the entirety of the 7 minute cycle, and we haven't even thought about any potential issues teams might have connecting to the field, the MC introducing teams, and the gap between the end of the match and the field going green.

The way we handled it at Lake Superior was that we pushed teams to turn their robots on as soon as (safely) possible. If I noticed that a team was on the field longer than their alliance partners, that is when I would glance at the clock and start watching them more closely. If a minute or so passed (I gave very lenient minutes) and they weren't off the field yet, I let them know it was time to start moving. We never called any G10s, and by eliminations every team had their system down to a workable time.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

In Nashua teams modified their robots on the field and before they took them off. I don't recall seeing anyone held to the 60 second time limit however there were moments where we needed to push a few teams to finish setup.

The transport mode really messes with getting robots on and off the field in timely manners. A lot of people mentioned field reset was going to take a really long time this year and limit the cycle time per match. After doing it for a weekend its the transport configuration that is holding up the process because it takes longer for teams to setup and leave the field holding up the next round of teams. We found this combined with moving teams in a High School gym (where most districts are held) wasn't optimal since the limited room for staging caused many traffic jams.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I believe that none of us are customers; neither teams nor HQ or GDC. Rather, we are members of a community. A community comprised almost entirely of volunteers.

"Gracious Professionalism is part of the ethos of FIRST. It's a way of doing things that encourages high-quality work, emphasizes the value of others, and respects individuals and the community."

Emphasis mine. I agree that Frank, "gets it" and lives it and is encouraging all of us to do the same.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

...crickets will be chirping till next season.

We remind our drive team to be wary of G2, G10 and G14. Over excited or shocked team members' actions are hard to predict.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Assuming when you enter the field with the Robot you proceed directly to your placement point, and that the placement point is not blocked by a leaving robot: It starts when you in the general area of the placement point.

Assuming the field reset people are inhibiting your ability to setup the robot, an allowance will be made.

60 seconds is a guide, not a requirement. Hence, a regular watch is sufficient. If you are at your placement point at 3:35:00 pm, then your 60 seconds is up at 3:36:00 pm.

Each robot has its own 60 second period. If your team unnecessarily delays entering the field (standing around yacking and not entering the field when they are first able to) then that delay will count against your 60 seconds.

That said: the 60 second rule gets progressively more strict as the tournament proceeds. Numerous teams were warned at the beginning of qualification matches when they were taking too long. By the time we got to the elimination matches, we didn't have a problem with setup.

If we were having a problem, here is what I would do: I would identify the problem teams, and make it clear to them when the 60 seconds starts (stand there and say your 60 seconds starts now). I would warn them at 50 seconds, and again at 60 seconds. I would then give them 15 seconds to clear the field. At that point, they would have earned the disabled. Whether they are disabled or not would depend upon whether they are delaying the start, or if other things are going on (field connection problems with another bot, another bot still in their 60 seconds, etc.).

BTW: By the time you get to 50 seconds, you should make sure the robot can play as is. That is, it is at an allowable placement on the field. If you don't have time to screw on the last part, then play without the last part. Playing hobbled is not a problem (as long as it is not dangerous). Starting in the wrong place is a problem.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I fear you are correct. When I started this thread, FIRST had not come out with their response to the Dallas fiasco. I had hoped that they would make G10 a bit clearer when they announced the results of their investigations. But... ...no joy.

I suppose that Frank's mention of training and team experience will help homogenize the disparate interpretations of this rule but I would feel better if FIRST came out with a statement to the general FIRST community that would get everyone on the same page.

But... ...given that nothing has happened yet, I think it will have to wait until next season... ...or another case on the scale of Dallas Week 1.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

60 seconds is a guideline... so teams will be rigidly held to 60 seconds?

60 seconds wasn't even enough time for most teams last year.

The 60 seconds should really only refer to the exiting of transport config, the usual undetermined amount of time for loading in and alignment should be separate.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

You seem to have a much more rigid and strict interpretation of the rule than several of the other refs on this thread. Which, I believe, is Dr. Joe's whole point. G10 as written is vague, so refs have to make up their own definitions of what a violation is. It's not a good state of affairs to have that level of penalty hinge on such a vague definition.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Just as a matter of cya, #1 question of officiating crew at every event's drivers meeting should be "How will the 60 second setup timing be handled during this event?" #2 "How will the enforcement of the 60 second setup timing be changed as the event proceeds whether due to schedule lag or the beginning of playoffs?"

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

As mentioned previously, the 60 second guideline is just that. A guideline, NOT a rule. I hope that it is being treated as such at all events.

The rule is this:
G10 DRIVE TEAMS may not cause significant or repeated delays to the start of a MATCH.
VIOLATION: The offending ROBOT will be DISABLED

My take: When are you actually delaying a match? Assuming you have turned on your robot in a timely manner (which you presumably will be reminded of constantly by the field crew) you are only delaying the match if you are still on the field adjusting things when the stack light on the scoring table goes green. At least that's the way I see it.

Of course there are teams that try to game the system by being the last robot to turn on, thus giving them more time to position for auto or whatever. Those teams may fall under the repeated delay situation, but more often that not, we're talking about an extra 20-30 seconds. Hardly enough time to justify making them sit out a match.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

As a key volunteer, we want to provide teams a quality event experience. This doesn't mean that every team will be happy with the outcome of every decision or call on the field, but as a whole, the team will leave an event having had a good time and an overall positive experience. Even if events are running behind schedule, we still want teams to have an enjoyable experience and feel like they were given every reasonable accommodation to compete.

The 60 second guideline is a measure for teams to understand that there needs to be some reasonable approach to their robot design. It is understood that early on in a competition, there will be delays as teams are not necessarily well-practiced or efficient in setting up their robot. If a single team takes 5-6 minutes to set up every match, it could potentially delay a competition an hour.

The refs and FTAs really do not want to disable a robot. It is a last-call measure and it has to be reported.

As far as the comments about "crickets chirping in Manchester", I don't know if I read the tone of the statement correctly as being that of inaction by FIRST HQ. I will say that there is no lack of conversation on this topic and there has been some communication on the subject enforcing the priority of a quality team experience. I am sure we will hear more from Frank in the coming days. I would expect that if there is no explicit rule change, FTAs and refs will have been informed of the policy guidance on this rule to adhere to the priority of a quality team experience.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

If there is a team that is known to take a long time, then they will know when the end of the reasonable period is reached. Will they be disabled at that point? It all depends upon what else is going on. If other teams are still setting up, if the FTA's are working on a connection problem, etc, then, as far as I'm concerned, they can keep working. But, if they reach the end of the reasonable period, and we are all standing around waiting for them, we are 5 minutes from the end of the last match (7 minute intervals), etc. then they risk being disabled if they do not promptly wrap it up and leave the field.

With a problem team, I'll be strict in letting them know they have reached the end of the reasonable period. I'll then let the Head Ref know they have been adequately warned, and it is their call whether to impose the disabled penalty. The issue is that it is not a surprise to the team when the disabled penalty is given. If I were the Head Ref, I would be flexible to the point of the team becoming a nuisance. One of my team's scouting questions is whether the team take a long time to get on or get off the field. I would advise my team to avoid selecting a team that has any chance of disabled delay penalty.

So, if you are on an alliance with a bot that takes a long time to set up, then make sure that bot is the first one onto the field. That gives them the maximum amount of time to setup before anyone notices how long it is taking.

Note: Q437 says that G7 repositioning should be a matter of seconds, so don't rely upon another 15 seconds to position your robot.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

rich2202,

Please do not take the following sentences as an attack as I surely do not mean them to be, but ...

All of your responses to me are your interpretation and they are way more rigid than the suggestion of a Blue box in the rules. If you are a ref, then I do not want to be at your events because my team experience will be horrible if you do, in fact, enforce the rules as you have explained.

If 60 seconds is a suggestion, then why do you have a hard limit at 60 seconds? Also, how can you seriously tell people to hurry at 50 seconds if they don't actually know when 50 seconds is? Do you verbally count them out? Is there a timer like for timeouts? Do you give your crew a stopwatch?

I don't mean to be a jerk, but the vagueness that causes VASTLY different enforcement criteria by different refs is frustrating, to say the least.

Your post simply highlighted all the inconsistencies this vagueness can cause.

Paul

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I can't comment on how the rule was applied at other regionals. At the one I was at, there were problem teams early on, and that was expected. I would warn the teams to speed up the process in future matches. Fortunately, they all got their act together (or did not advance to the eliminations), so there wasn't an issue.

If a team persisted being a problem (i kept notes of which teams I told to speed it up), I would be a PIA to them. Standing next to them when the robot arrives on the field, and letting them know when their 60 seconds starts.

By the time a team is disabled, they would have known they have earned it, and it would not have been a surprise. However, at one match they could receive bonus time because other teams were still setting up. It would appear capricious if the next match they don't get as much bonus time because all the other teams have left the field.

No one wants a hard 60 second rule. Variances after 60 seconds is what may lead to what appears to be vastly different enforcement, even within the same ref crew. If someone else is delaying the match, I'm not going to penalize you, just because I can. That should not be taken as a license to take the same amount of time in the future.

If your team is delaying the match, and if you have been warned, then the disabled is appropriate, and not a surprise. The rigidity provides a standard framework for warning a team when they have reached the end of the reasonable period. The flexibilty is how much longer they get after that before the penalty is applied.

At our regional a robot was disabled for other reasons. But, they had been warned at the end of prior matches. After the disable, they modified their strategy to not do it again.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Bold emphasis is my own.

Hey Rich-
I just wanted to point out why so many people in this thread are concerned about the interpretation and enforcement of the 60 second setup rule.

The bold statements above are all extremely concerning to me as a team mentor. These are all 'judgement calls' and interpretation of individual referees which WILL be different, ref to ref, day to day and event to event.

Things like setup time varying based on whats going on elsewhere on the field? That doesn't seem like rigid enforcement, but then holding teams to 'a matter of seconds' not meaning 15 seems like a rigid enforcement of an unwritten time limit (aka an interpretation of a rule which will vary). What constitutes a problem team? A one time offender? Two times? Every single time? Can a team be moved off the 'problem' team list if they make adjustments?

It's simply too vague right now and is leaving a wide array of interpretations that have already reared their head in a bad way at an event resulting in corrective action from HQ.

-Brando

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

That may affect when you get on the field, but, once you are at your placement location, and the location is clear, your 60 seconds starts, regardless of what is happening on the rest of the field.

Any team that takes more than 60 seconds to setup. However, if a team routinely takes 65 seconds, I probably won't notice them. But, if I do notice them, you can bet that they are taking more than 60 seconds.

Yes, they get warnings, and a lot of slack during early qualification matches.

After a few matches of being warned, that is when I will be a PIA to them. They will also know that I am telling the Head Ref about them.

If a team is complying with the 60 second guideline, they have comfort in knowing that they will not be disabled because of the rule. Just because you may be in reasonable compliance doesn't mean that you have earned back an extended grace period.

I don't know the specifics about Dallas. If a team has been sufficiently warned, then the disabled should not be a surprise to them. If they had not been warned, then I think that is a problem. In practice matches, we were calling a lot of fouls. That is like a warning to the teams. By the time we got to eliminations, no fouls were being called. We didn't get more lax at calling fouls. The Teams were getting better at not committing them.

I think the 60 second guideline is: you know it when you see it. Obviously there will be extenuating circumstances, and a team should get more time. But, 99% of the time, a team knows when their 60 seconds starts - they are at their location, and able to place their robot. IMHO: All the other what-if's are red herrings. In general, the Ref's can see the situation, and adjust accordingly. Now, if teams are fighting over who goes where, that is an Alliance Problem, not a Ref/Field problem.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I'm going to echo a few points made by others in this thread. And, I'm not meaning to pile on to Rich, but these types of exceptions and bending are exactly what lead to the frustration we as team mentors fear, based on observations so far this year.

So, were you just being a PIA, or were you alerting the inspectors or others at the event to help the team find ways to get under the 60 second mark? I'd really hope it was more than just lording over them and watching the countdown. Also, did teams that were under the 60 second number know they were on time? Or were they left guessing about any "bonus time" they got?

See, this concept of "bonus time" is pretty troubling. I can see it leading to situations where teams are setting up in more than 60 seconds but not being disabled due to this concept, only to be disabled in a later match when setting up in the same amount of time.

Frankly, from all of the exceptions and bending of the rules I've heard, I could be convinced to have a 60 second clock to set up. Something like Field Reset says the field is ready, start the clock, and all teams need to be off the field in 60 seconds. Perhaps a bit of a pressure cooker, but at least we're all clear on the time.

Except, from what I've been seeing in this thread and in the week 1 webcasts, there's the opposite of rigidity and standard -- it's all flexible and dependent on the interpretation of the situation. The flexibility you mention negates any expectations of standards.

While G10 is vague, the solution isn't to make your own rules around G10. The solution is to tell GDC that we need a better G10. Whether you're a Ref, Head Ref, FTA, team member, or spectator, it's better for all of us to have a better rule than to attempt to make up for the vagueness with "house rules" that change the competition depending on where you are competing.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Hey Rich

Just want to chime into say you'd be welcome reffing any regional I'm at. No, the 60-seconds wasn't a hard-and-fast rule in the book, but your warn-then-penalize approach seems fair if implemented as you've said in the thread.

If the team knows when the clock starts, gets 60 seconds, knows when it is about to expire, and has gotten several warnings from past matches, it seems fair that they should start getting penalties.
As long as you enforce it consistently on every team throughout a regional, inter-regional differences shouldn't matter. If a team A is competing at regional X with a tough ref that doesn't give a hair over 60 seconds, it shouldn't matter that the team B at regional Y are having it easier. If team A and team B later compete at regional Z, it will still be under a level playing field run by the regional Z's ref.

I'd be fine with the rule being modified to something like:
"Teams must be given at least 60 seconds to set up. It is up to the head ref's discretion whether to hand out [penalties of some flavour] 60 seconds after the announced start of a 'setup period'. The start of the 'setup period' must be after all robots competing in the match have entered the field".
Edit: I have thought of a loophole, but this kind of rule design might be a fun separate topic itself.

If you don't want a penalty with that rule, just make sure you consistently set up fast. Ideally, it'd get built into the FMS and would be skippable if a conditions mean you don't have to enforce it or teams all get off the field super-quick.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I was at Perry for the inaugural Georgia Southern Classic. Fortunately we ran pretty much on time without the issues elsewhere. Field reset actually went pretty quickly. I didn't see any issues with teams taking too long to set up their robots so G10 never really came into play. But G10 needs flexibility to suit the varying conditions. Running on time or early you can afford to be lenient. But since there is a limited amount time to complete the competition, the best we can hope for is that management (referees, etc) use their best GP & communication skills to let teams know about the changing conditions. On the team side, common sense should tell you if the matches are running late, you need to be efficient getting on & off the field. Despite the subject line of this thread, please do not take this to be a specific comment about Dallas. I was not there.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Rich-

I think your interpretation of the rule is fair, reasonable and a good example of how to enforce it across every event.

The issue is that not every referee is you, and actually can (as depicted in the various examples across this thread) widely vary from the method you are describing.

Unfortunately there are situations that have already occurred that leave teams in a bad position and force us to protect ourselves. We need to ensure we are not surprised by rule interpretations when we get to an event.

This clarification is something I think all of us would really like to see, somewhere in 'black and white'.

-Brando

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

There's a tension here between individual team experience and collective team experience that needs to be recognized. Individual teams want to make sure that they can run their robot in each match. Collectively, teams want the event to run roughly on schedule (volunteer availability, team member's schedules, transportation, meals, etc) and want to maximize the number of matches.

The rules allows those running the event to strike a balance. At Northern Lights, the following things held true:

1. No team received less than 60 seconds to set their robot up on the field.
2. Every team that was slow enough to delay the event were told they were slow. Those teams all knew they were slow without us telling them. They were told that we would be less tolerant during quals than during practice.
3. No team was disabled for overrunning the setup time.
4. Nearly all teams solved their slowness problems on Friday.

I think the standard from the team perspective is pretty straightforward. You should be able to set up and position your robot in 60 seconds. You can choose to take longer than that, but you run the risk that you end up disabled because you're delaying the event.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I can say that, as an inspector, I tried to help teams as best I could with the set up time. There was one team that specifically comes to mind that added a gripper halfway through the competition, and it had to be attached on the field. When they came up to have it inspected, I did the usual stuff - sharp edges, weight, sizing box, etc. But I also asked them to attach the gripper to the robot. My intent with that was to verify it wouldn't cause issues (like gouging the scoring platforms), but I also times them. When it took about 90 seconds, I warned them that they would need to practice it to get it fast enough for the field. It's not part of the inspection, and they passed without any issue, but I was hoping that they would take the warning to heart, Practice orc and then not have issues setting up on the field. Just a little something extra to help their weekend go smoothly.

With something like this, teams need to consider 60 seconds to be a hard and fast rule. The need to design, build, and practice to ensure they are faster than 60 seconds. And then the field needs to give teams as much leeway as possible, while still maintaining the overall event schedule. While the volunteers are focused on the team experience, we have 60 teams we're worried about, not just the one team that's taking a bit long to get set up. We'll do everything we can to ensure every team has a good time, but the teams need to be focused on their experience as well. Part of that is the experience of engineering to a fixed set of requirements, one of which is the on field setup. It's a harsh lesson to learn sometimes, but the process of engineering isn't just designing something cool. It's designing something cool that meets all of the requirements handed down to you.

So treat the 60 seconds as a fixed limit, and trust in the volunteers to do what they can to assist you and ensure you not only play, but play on time so those watching from home can see your match when they expect to.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

*Jon above said this much better, but still leaving mine as I feel better now.*


I'm guessing that this won't be popular, but since I'm going to have to deal with this crap in weeks 5 & 6 (maybe 4), and watching several threads all whining about the same thing, I'm going to spill it.

/being rant

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what the issue really is here. This is sounding a whole lot like my 11-year-old and 7-year-old having a "discussion". Frankly it is amazing to me that it is the "adults" that are the vocal ones here, but I will assume that teams only want one public voice and not a whole slew.

As far as I am aware, that 60 sec "guideline" has been in the Game Manual since Kickoff. It was not a surprise addition 5 weeks into Build Season that should suddenly make a team have to redesign their entire robot because their setup takes 2 minutes and they CHOSE to ignore it. In my OPINION (was that plain enough?), a HUGE part of the Engineering Challenge for this game with the very relaxed on-field dimensions was this exact thing.

Did the Mentors and Engineers complaining REALLY think that it wouldn't be watched during the competition? If so, then why in the heck would you think the GDC would even put that blue box there in the unarguably slimmed down manual for this year? That blue box gives examples of things that can cause a team to be called for a G10. Section F says specifically, "prolonged assembly/disassembly of a ROBOT to transform is from its TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION," and a specified guideline for that assembly/disassembly says, "ROBOTS should be configurable in less than sixty (60) seconds." Yes, the 60 seconds was not in the white section, but it should give you pause for thought that they took the time to put it in there at all and maybe think, "Ya know, we ought to design to setup in less than 60 seconds."

THIS ISN'T HARD. If your team did not follow the guideline and just built a bot with the thought of, "They aren't going to enforce it anyway," then figure out a way now. Do the Engineers complaining completely ignore any guidelines in documentation in their particular fields like many want to do here?

Bringing up, "But we paid money to ignore the rules," also doesn't really fly since this was not a post-kickoff rule.

/end rant

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Nate,

We are not complaining. We are asking for some clarification and STANDARDIZATION. And yes, many of us are the voice for our teams for issues like this. Since Frank and the GDC monitor these threads I believe it is a good place to have such discussion. I respect your opinion, but simply disagree with it.

For everyone, here is G10 to reference:

I can tell you that G10 was arbitrarily enforced by the letter of G10. As a matter of fact, all of the disables happened BEFORE the green light was even on (yes, the robots that were disabled were already powered on).

I highlighted "configurable" because this, to me, is the crux of the communication issue. My team read this as "don't make a robot that takes longer than 60 seconds to put together with the new rules". We did not read it as do not take longer than 60 seconds to be back in the driver's station. Why didn't we read it that way? Because, on average, it has taken longer than 60 seconds for this in the past. This rule, to us, was a limitation on how much assembly and robot configuring you could do and seemed reasonable to us.

However, it is being enforced differently than that.



Paul

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

You just don't get it. Paul's post above summarizes the facts well.

Past that, there is a higher level argument.

We pay lots of money, and the goal is to give students a good experience (in my mind). Decisions that are arbitrary that lead to a lot of pain on students are bad. These should be minimized.

We pay to compete BEFORE we see the rules, it's on FIRST to minimize (ideally to zero) the amount of rules that give kids a negative experience. They've generally done a good job of this.

The unfortunate issue here is volunteers are clearly making this FAR more punitive than what FIRST intended.

A reasonable person assumes the rule means 60 seconds to configure, separate from the traditional setup time. I'd wager just about any team with a shooter auto last year took longer than 60 seconds to setup every single match.



If FIRST clarifies we must do it all in 60 seconds, we will. We reserve the right to be grumpy about an arbitrary decision that just hurts the kids however.



Oh, also. Paul won the Woodie Flowers Award at champs, and is all around a good dude. I don't think it's reasonable to label his "whining" (which wasn't whining) as that of a 7 year old. Please read this before replying again.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I agree with a lot of the points that Paul C. makes.

My reason for starting this thread was to have a discussion around consistency of rules more than the details of this particular rule.

I also was poking FIRST a bit, yes, because, frankly, I am left scratching my head around the question of "what problem is FIRST solving by not providing clarity around this issue?" It is clear from the FRC Blog that they know there is a problem with consistent enforcement. It is also clear that the rule is deliberately vague. I assume that they are working behind the scenes to address this for Week 2 and beyond. So why are they not clearing this up publicly?

As I type right now, I believe I have a reasonable theory. FIRST does not want clarity. When a team is just not going to be able to compete under a strict limit, they want to be able to look the other way. BUT but but, they don't want to make this an official policy because

A) if team gets ridiculous with respect to the transformation time, they want to be able to rein them in and
B) they don't want to upset folks who will no doubt say, "if I knew I had X extra seconds above and beyond 60 , I would have designed a completely different robot that would have played on Einstein. Guaranteed!"

I don't know if this the really the reason for the lack of clarification but it does seem to explain things.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

This entire thread is just a grim reminder to me that the Q&A system is my least talked to friend. This rule seemed clear cut in my mind all it did was add an engineering constraint to the robot. All these responses though prove it is anything but clear.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I find most of the comments crazy!!!
I can see no reason (other than safety issues) for a robot to be disabled in the elimination rounds ! PERIOD!!!

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

With respect, if you knew this wasn't going to be popular perhaps a better choice of language next time?

You see a few professionals engaging in this thread because they are good at analyzing the "big picture" and recognizing risks of all kinds. The G10-related enforcement issues are a clear and present risk to the experience of the students and the fairness of the game.

Without a giant clock (or maybe one on each side like basketball or football) and a crystal clear modification of G10 enforcement is a judgement call by the refs. Even in this thread there are well-intentioned refs with differing opinions. Paul is absolutely correct, "clarification and STANDARDIZATION" is necessary. If I were a ref I'd probably go with a 3-strike setup with plenty of communications with teams, sending emissaries to the pits etc. It would all be very professional and courteous unlike the refs yelling at my students (about a chute door stuck open by a failed mechanism) at Dallas.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Be assured that I will read the link, although not at this time since it doesn't say exactly what it is about, but I will kindly ignore the "sit in the corner" order. :D

As said at the beginning of my post, my rant was not directed at anyone in particular, let alone Paul, although I'm not sure what a Woodie Flowers Award has to do with it (I apologize that I apparently do not understand the real reason for the award yet, although if anyone wants to chat with me at Vegas or Arizona East & West I will be happy to). It was directed at the tone of the myriad of threads that have been opened for this same exact issue which pretty much all have degraded into whining.

I'll repeat. THIS ISN'T HARD. I guess I'm looking forward to when FIRST releases the manual with a "Here is what you CAN do" instead of "Here is what you CAN'T do". But then CD will be a ghost town.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I can understand the frustration of many folks around the vagueness and/or inconsistency in applying G10, and I think it is appropriate that we try to make sure teams are treated fairly and have a good experience.

That said, I took it as a given in the design of the game that the ability to take a robot from transportation configuration to competition ready in a short time is one of the design parameters this year. The introduction explicitly pointed out that teams would have huge latitude in what a robot looks like on the field, then immediately warned about delays and mentioned the 60-second guideline. They also explicitly clamped down on some other gray areas, such as use of webcams for a "hybrid" autonomous. I see it as inviting creativity and innovation, but attaching some risk to going outside the box.

It seemed clear to me that they were inviting a risk/reward calculation – go ahead and add conveyor belts, tethered helpers, and such, but you must be able to assemble it quickly. I guessed that their hesitation to set a hard and fast time limit was to prevent "rules lawyers" from trying to win simply by making sure other teams get penalized. Hence, I can understand the use of vague and general goals rather than specific rules.

As a mentor for a team that discarded some designs as impractical because of the time parameters, I don't want infinite laxity. I think Rich actually has outlined a pretty reasonable approach in which teams who are pushing the limits have the expectations made clear to them.

Make the team experience the top priority. Then make sure that nobody is exploiting that to gain an advantage counter to the spirit of the game and slow everything down in the process.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Hey Nate-

There is a term in conflict resolution called "Frames" that I feel fits here. You are framing some pretty large assumptions that the reason we are complaining is because we never thought this would actually be enforced. There are a lot of pretty interesting assumptions you are making. I actually find it a bit humorous to insinuate that this cast of characters overlooked ANYTHING in the rule book...

Quite honestly you're entire post is insinuating that because we're being vocal (and we're adults) we must be trying to skirt the rules to gain an advantage.

Let me frame some things for you: my team never leaves transport configuration, we built to always fit inside of the transport config box.

I am being vocal about this issue because if I have a firm understanding of what to expect and how the rules will be enforced, I can ensure my team knows what to look for (for ourselves, our partners and our opponents). This in my opinion is what good coaches do, regardless of sport or activity.

I'm also trying to make FRC a better place where we do not have instances of ambiguous rule interpretation governing team experience.


-Brando

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I agree with this statement. With the thousands of hours put into these robots by students who are very emotionally tied to their project, to have their work negated by a timing issue is incredibly sad and personally damaging. From my personal experience mentoring a team affected by the hacking problem of 2012, one of the biggest issues was having the chance to compete, win or lose, being stripped away.

On a side note, from someone that watched the Dallas regional, how often or number of times was this delay of match penalty enforced? Also did the offending team have a significantly longer delay in the eliminations than their normal set up time in the qualifications?

-Andrew

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Umm, I can think of one very good one.

That's what the rules say.

Not enforcing the rules is unfair to the teams that invested a lot of time and effort into following them, let alone those that may have compromised some aspects of a design.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Once again not applying this spefically to Dallas, a disable beats a red card for a rule infraction during eliminations. At least from an alliance point of view. Specifically commenting on Dallas, the other Frank was clearly not happy with the results. I take him at his word that steps will be taken to make the way incidents like are handled better going forward.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I think this is right on the nose. I'm a soccer referee, and there's a rule that this whole discussion is reminding me of - the rule that goalies can only hold on to the ball for 6 seconds. It says...
But what does "controls" mean? Does bouncing the ball, as most goalies do, count as "releasing possession"? These things are taught in referee classes, but not in the rulebook or to the public. But the main thing I was taught about that rule is that it should only be called in the most egregious circumstances, after multiple or outrageous violations.

It sounds a lot to me like G10 was intended to be somewhat similar.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

That is one of my pet peeves as a RI. I submitted a suggestion to First that they have 2 levels of inspection: Inspected for Qualifications, and Inspected for Elimination.

If a team's chassis is 1/2 inch bigger than transport configuration, do you want to prevent them from any competition (very hard to reduce chassis size by 1/2 inch in a short amount of time)? In that instance, I think you pass them for Qualifications, but DQ them for Eliminations. That way, they can participate, but not be unfair to the other teams that built within the rules.

As a Ref, I had a similar attitude: Very lenient at the beginning of qualifications, and getting more and more strict as the tournament progressed. Ideally, by the last match we are playing Elimination rules so if a team is disabled, the other teams have notice regarding the risk of picking that team for the Elimination Round.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I believe in soccer minor fouls are ignored if they do not effect play? I think it is the "play on rule"

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Very well meaning but getting into subjective territory - teams need something they can count on match to match and event to event. I can understand leniency during practice but letting a robot that is too-large participate in qualification rounds? That has never been tolerated. I can live with the apparent admonishment by Frank (and FIRST) to emphasize the "team experience". But if week 2 is a mess G10 needs immediate clarification.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Digression: Unless it's an American thing, I believe the 'play on' rule is about playing on if doing so gives an advantage (or doesn't harm) the team that "suffered" (ie the victim team of the offence). I think the goalie bouncing a ball is an example of a class of rules that tend to be ignored by referees, or interpreted differently, to avoid egregious officiating, or 'common sense' application of rules. Handballs are often not ruled by the letter of the law (or there would be more yellow cards). The laws have become a framework for which referees can pick and choose interpretation based on precedent and circumstance, usually as a reaction to popular opinion.

The analogy is apt for this situation.

If a referee decided to penalise a goalkeeper for holding on to the ball for seven seconds, there would be an uproar, even though it's written in the rules. In a situation like this, where actually timing each team rigorously is unsustainable, what's more important: consistency with the rules or consistency across all events?

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I think what Adam is saying here is crux of the issue here.

To summarize what Adam is saying, I'm going to layout a typical robot field setup procedure, and the two ways I believe rule G10 has interpreted this past week:

Robot Field Setup Procedure:
A. Team members enter the field with the robot, and move to the general location where it will be at the start of the match.

B. Team members unfold their robot out its transportation configuration.

C. Team members precisely align robot for their autonomous routine.

D. Team members exit the field and take up positions at their driver station/ human player station

Rule Interpretation 1:
Teams must complete items A - D in around 60 seconds.

Rule Interpretation 2:
Teams must complete item B in around 60 seconds, and are given the usual unspecified amount of time to complete items A, C, and D.



I would argue that it would have been hard for teams to complete items A, C, and D in seasons past in around 60 seconds (assuming they have an autonomous routine) , and its almost impossible to comply with Rule Interpretation 1 in around 60 seconds.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

Not really. If it would be better for the other team to temporarily ignore the foul, then that should be done. But the other team can still be punished if no advantage ensues, or if the foul is worthy of a yellow or red card.

Re: G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester
 

I believe this is exactly what happened. I think this rule was only intended to prevent teams for planning on a long set up time, and arm referees with the ability to hurry up teams who consistently take extraordinary amounts of time. Not as a strict punitive wrist-slap without warning (which is what so distressed Frank and the community).

It's worth noting that what the GDC has to do every year is very difficult, and it's not surprising that they create ambiguity in order to lean on referees to account for edge cases. Unfortunately they are victims of their own success; in order to inspire students, they wanted FRC to be taken seriously as a competition, and as a serious competition, it has to live up to the matching standards and scrutiny of its competitors and fans. Especially considering the time, energy and money it requires.

Also the fact that they foster a community of engineering, out-of-the-box thinkers doesn't make it easier...