![]() |
Uniform rules and enforcers?
During my three years in FIRST, I've noticed that FIRST is a lot like The Matrix.
Some rules can be bent, others broken, others enforced half the time, others not enforced at all. I believe that there should be some more concrete definitions in the rulebook of what phrases like "intentional damage" mean. At one regional, it was only evoked if damage was done due to the opposing alliance's actions on a robot directly. At another, it was evoked when no damage was done. At the championships, it was only used if serious damage was done (and not needed, in the end, in my division). At some regionals, 'mouse-bot' machines were disallowed, at others, allowed. Some out of tape measures totally against the rules - still allowed. I've heard some horror stories filtering out of regionals with teams using 4 drill motors, simply switching motors when the judges left. Or teams designing robots in a way to flip others simply by design (wedge) yet were not disqualified outright for creating a robot designed to flip others. (This was common enough for me to notice at competitions) I've heard of team getting away with things simply because they had people on the inspecting staff, or perhaps no one thought thier robot would do well, and thus let them use duct tape on thier machine. My question is fourfold. 1) What does it take to be a referee/inspector? - Don't get me wrong, most of them do a fine job, but some of them seemed to have some bias that would interfere with judging an event. 2) Would some sort of entrance exam based on the rules of the game be a good idea to ensure that refs all have a good understanding of the rules? 3) If FIRST really wants to grow, wouldn't they need paid refs, just like real sports' organizations? 4) Would random inspections be a good idea? |
I can't really answer the first 1 & 3, but I think 2 &4 are definitly good ideas... But only if the "random" inspector is not the original inspector. This would remove bias that the original may have had due to team friendlieness, etc.
Perhaps also some intercommunication of rule interpretation? Say for the first regionals of the season, there are more than one (I don't know off-hand). The head ref's from each regional should talk with eachother at Lunch break on Thursday and Friday about any rule occurances that are questionable. (Such as the 'mouse-bot'). They should decide what should be allowed, then the rest of the regionals should follow suit. What happens if Regional #1 doesn't allow 'mouse-bots' and Regional #7 allows them. Team X attends regionals 1 and 7 but removes a key strategy from their bot on Thursday because they think it's not going to be allowed... Once again brings up the whole 'shafted' topic. |
"Then do you call being unjust being low-minded?"
"No, I call it good judgement." We're never going to manage to stop everyone from cheating. I think that things could be a bit more strict and a bit more uniform (such as the suggestion by Gadget). Compare FIRST to a major sport and it seems like we need to get it together and make our rules concrete. But remember, we remake the game every year and spend less than 5 months on it before it is left to off season and then to history. So compare FIRST to something like Science Olympiad. From one competition to another there is no telling how close to the rules the administrator of the individual events will be. For instance, in Science of Fitness (an event dealing with anatomy, physiology, and nutrition) the rules once stated that we would be dealing with the heart and lungs, however the regional coordinator tested us on the intestinal system. Sorry to go off topic, but my point is that for how dynamic things are with FIRST, they do a pretty good job of keeping things consistent. |
We just finished dealing with a whole issue regarding dress codes and stuff in our school district. It was a real pain. I am not sure that I would want to go through that all over again and make up a whole bunch of new FIRST uniform rules.
Oh, wait. Never mind... -dave (just call me Emily Littela) |
if a team is violating the design rules, you CAN formally complain to the FIRST people (the head judge) and they will inspect the robot again.
If a team wins a match with a machine that violates the rules, then they can be disqualified AFTER that match is over. as for tipping and lifting - its very difficult to determine if a bot is designed to push containers by lifting one edge, or to tip robots over. if a robot is tipped over while engaged in a shoving match, that doesnt mean the other robot was designed to tip robots over. If your robot is tipped over frequently, you have C.G. issues :c) |
I know that at So Cal last year, a few of us went over the rules with the head ref Friday morning. He had obviously read the rules, but as we have seen, FIRST has had a diffcult time with the clairity of their rule writting. He had questions about when a 'rover' on top counted and when it didn't, with touching other 'rovers' and so on. They were very intelligent questions, but it seemed he had done nothing but read the FIRST rules. So there are two sides to this. By not having been involved, there isn't any bias, but then again he hasn't seen the precidents for the rules that had been set the previous weeks. That said, I've never seen anything resembling bias on the part of the refs.
Inspections, on the other hand, are a much more open to interpretation. For example, there can be no sharp edges. What is a sharp edge? What I was told would be a good thought would be to use the palm of my hand across it. Diffrent inspectors will think diffrent edges sharp. Some things are obvious, motor count, types of motors. Duct tape can not be used as a fastener but it can, however, be used as a non functional decoration. (Covering sharp edges is not nonfunctional) Also, in response to the to many motors, I keep hearing "I've heard that teams used to many motors" but have never seen this, nor heard anyone be able to confirm this. That would delagate it to the rumor mill, and there it should stay. Wetzel ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ask me about my inspections. |
Quote:
|
For a bit of clarity. Head refs have had communication with FIRST before the regional. Any discrepts are dealt with then. As more regionals happen more "angles" are covered.
Let's look at it another way. There are about 800 teams competing. Each one is pushing themselves, their robots and the rules to the limit. They are all trying to get the winning angle. FIRST has to design a new game every year and a few people try to implement rules to make the game work. What are the chances that all angles are covered and everyone would be happy. Many teams build their robots to work slightly outside of the rules to get an edge. They don't try to destroy other robots or the integrity of the game but they knowingly violate the spirit of the rules. Most of the teams when notified of their infraction fix the issue without complaints. I guess the issue is Gracious Professionalism. Should we bend the rules to try and win? If every team followed the rules and the spirit of the rules then we wouldn't have any problems. This however will not happen as teams now need to win to advance. I believe though that MOST teams do and will follow the guidelines. That's what makes FIRST such a great environment. Lets hope that every team that follows these guidelines influence one other team. It won't take long for this type of forum to disappear. |
quit whinin' that's all part of competition. If someone purposely damages you for no reason it's pretty appartent. For example: Running full speed into a dead bot on the corner of the field. Human error is what makes competition, competition.
|
Re: Uniform rules and enforcers?
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hmmm...how many drill motors do you use? ;) |
as for running into other robots
with the auton mode, its pretty much a given that this is going to happen - so your bot better be designed to take it. |
Quote:
|
Re: Uniform rules and enforcers?
Quote:
1) What does it take to be a referee/inspector? Usually a head referee or a head inspector is assigned to regional by FIRST. It is usually a senior FIRST or FIRST volunteer with years of experience. But every year the challenge is different or new parts are added to the kits. Volunteer training unfortunately is short. Volunteers already commit a lot of time, 3 to 5 days, to a regional event which is enormously valuable. People are taking off from work , school, and family time to help run FIRST. Imagine asking them to send 1 to 2 more days from work or home to train for refereeing or inspection. 2) Would some sort of entrance exam based on the rules of the game be a good ideal to ensure that refs all have a good understanding of the rules? Referees and inspector are trained but only occurring to the rules and guidelines FIRST gives them from their documentation. This become an disadvantage because the students, coaches and mentors playing the game knows more about the game's loopholes, misses, and problems than the volunteers who has to read thru 20+ team updates in a couple of hours. It is almost impossible for the Head Referee and his volunteers to keep up with all the possible scenarios that can occur during field of play. And Inspectors have to play detective, cop and negotiator with some team that push the rules- I have seen some teams intentionally violate rules and some teams just don't interprete the rules correctly. Last year FIRST asked for more Team members to volunteer will refereeing and inspecting. Tt is not perfect, it won't fix all the problems but a positive step for improvement. 3) If FIRST really wants to grow, wouldn't they need paid refs, just like real sports" organizations? No. I think this would go against the mission of FIRST. 4) Would random inspections be a good idea? Yes, and other teams have also helped by reporting violation to the inspector. Last year one team replace their whole front end which violated the weight limit by 15+ pounds; no respect for gracious professionalism. FIRST reflects LIFE, it's not perfect, but worth living. :D |
Inspectors
Sadly enough I helped inspect robots at West Michigan and there were quite a few problems. Knowing our robot well and all of the rules made it pretty easy to spot obvious problems and yes I have seen teams use the wrong number of motors, the wrong breakers, wrong wiring on the pump, Victor 883's, modifications to the air cylinders, custom valves, you name it. The worst part about being an inspector or Judge is that even though you are there on your own time, including a hotel room!, people are upset that you re following the rules. And if a previous regional missed the rule violations shame on them, not shame on me for catching them. Especially the violations that are clearly labeled on the inspection sheet.
|
Having inspected robots in the past, let me be the first to say that it's not a particularly easy job. You have to remember that there's one inspector for each robot which means that that one inspector has to know about all aspects of the robot. The two key parts of the inspection are the electronics and the pneumatics. Now, personally, I know the electronic rules quite well. I don't know the pneumatic rules that well at all. I did have some help with the pneumatic side of things (thanks ChrisH) but I'm sure there were some teams that managed to slip by with something slightly out of spec because I just didn't know enough about the pneumatics (and I'm sure the action was misadvertant and not intentional but mistakes happen). On the flip side of things, I know that I probably made some teams change some electrical things that most inspectors would let go through as it was incidental (I'm picky on my wiring).
All in all, it'd be quite hard to standardize things like inspection simply because there's so much variation among both people and teams. Matt |
Perhaps the concept of Jack of All Trades, Master of None.. shouldn't be applying to judges.
When someone has to memorize every rule, and know the possibly swaying within them (those borderline robots, for example, 68 before removing the extensions which would "hold" the outside rails) there is bound to be a lapse somewhere. Someone will get by that shouldn't, intentional or not. Having people that are instructed to know certain parts of the rules could likely alleviate a vast majority. Inspector 1: Checks for obvious errors. Weight, Size, Sharp corners, Motor Count, Cylinder count, Light working. Inspector 2: Checks for Electrical specific errors. Breakers, Battery hookup, motor/speed controller modifications Inspector 3: Checks for Pneumatic specific erros. Custom connectors, compressor issues, PSI Gauge, Sollenoid type count. Inspector 4: Other rules that pertain to the game specifically. Such as "No retroreflective tape allowed on robot" .. Insp. 4 checks for things like retroreflective tape. If mouse-bot type things aren't allowed, this is where they get stopped. Even though the mouse-bot passes everything else. Sneaking past a stressed inspector is probably not to difficult, but sneaking past one who is a master of the specific components is going to be hard. It wouldn't be 1 inspector watching 20 teams, it could easily be 4 inspectors watching 80 teams. With better accuracy at rules being followed. |
The problem with having a group of inspectors to inspect robots is there simply aren't enough people to do it. There are a limited number of inspectors and they need to finish inspecting all the robots in a fairly small time period.
And on more controversial issues it's usually left up to the head inspector to make the decision. Although I do know the decision has been made even higher up in the past. Matt |
Inspecting
I volunteered as an inspector at the Houston Nationals, and the excuses teams tried to use to get around rules were mindbending. Accidental violations are what inspectors are there to detect, the intentional violations simply are against the spirit of FIRST.
One team attempted to use a piece of aluminum as a bumper, arguing that under the rules it was not a "hard material". (The term was defined two places, once as a material that hurt if you hit it, and once as any wood metal or hard plastic). It took about 15 minutes of discussion with the teams and other inspectors to resolve the dispute. Another team used old 883 motor controllers in place of the 884s. They "cleverly" disguised these by placing tape over the names. However, two controllers flash differently when no oi is present, and are thus easily identifiable. Even after performing this test, the team denied that they had any 883s on the robot. (By the way, I was overruled on this and they were allowed to keep the 883s) Another team wired twelve volts and ground to ajacent bolts extending through the bottom of the frame. They argued that they wern't custom terminal strips because they were only single wires, whereas a strip contained multiple. Either way, exposed power on the underside of a robot can be very dangerous. (The resolution that waas eventually agreed upon: tape over them. ????) Teams ought to build their robots to conform with the rules, and be willing to modify them if it is found to be illegal. And please don't use the excuse that "they allowed this at the last regional." |
See now, there shouldn't be lee-way in using illegal materials, illegal wiring, etc.
and I liked the idea of specialized inspectors. If you get teams of inspectors each doing a different aspect of the robot, things would go much faster. Or simply inspect robots thursday afternoon, before the actual games begins. |
The question frequently isn't whether or not something that is illegal should be allowed but whether or not a certain item is illegal. Unfortunately, lots of people interpret the rules very differently from others. It's simply not that cut and dried.
I'd also point out that all inspections should be done on the Thursday of a competition during the practice rounds. There are usually a few teams that don't get inspected until Friday but that's the exception. Matt |
Re: Inspecting
Quote:
Some teams were very hostile about changing things when I noticed obvious violations. There is no reason for hostility, I am a volunteer trying to ensure a safe and fair competition, I am not here to make their lives miserable. I think one of the main problems is FIRST rules are often "soft" and are changed mid-season (*cough* tape measure, light visibility *cough*) so teams don't think they have to follow any rule cause if they complain enough it will be changed the next week. If FIRST enforced rules strictly no one would challenge them. Since I have been on both sides of an inspection, I can understand the need for intelligent debate over the interpretation of some vague rules. I have won debates with inspectors (by won I mean the inspectors finally saw my point and agreed). I also lost a debate over wire size as an inspector (I was wrong and apologized for the hassle). I thought FIRST rules required 10 AWG wire from the breaker to all speed controllers regardless of the (small) motor connected to it. Inspection is a big job for the few inspectors at the each competition. All teams must be inspected in 1 day and many wait till the last minute and/or require multiple inspections before they pass. It is difficult to get enough people with the know-how to be good inspectors. Even some professional engineers are not familiar enough with with the FIRST motors, controls, or pneumatics to notice violations. I remember one engineer inspector asked my team how our "hydraulic tanks worked without springs in them to keep the pressure", then we reminded him that they are pneumatic tanks. ;) |
Personally I think that alot of the inspectors are doing a good job. I have personally see alot of things slip but, they were not intentional or have a basis in any way. I think that we need to give the inspectors more credit at a regional event there are alot of teams that must be inspected. I think a good solution would be to have more inspectors like teams of two inspectors that inspect the robots. That way if one catchs something that the other didn't it can be brought to attention or decisions may be challenged. I like the idea of random inspections but there are two sides to that idea. Like it could stop adding parts after inspection but it could also bite you back. For instance if you working on your bot before a match and you had ductape on your bot for example you could get into trouble.
Gives you something to think about! Huh? :confused: |
you need to keep in mind that the purpose of the competition isnt to see which team can build the best robot
the teams have just gone through a complete engineering design cycle, and now they have their product on hand and want to see how it performs so rejecting a teams robot for some technicality effectively would reject ALL the work they did for the last 6 weeks. you dont want to end up with a team not being able to compete at all. I think one thing we can do as an organization (all the teams) is to be out there in the pits, and if a team fails inspection and needs significat work to pass, they should be able to find plenty of help from other teams I know this aways happens eventually, but maybe we need a way to put together the people who need help, and the people who can offer help, a little more effectively. |
Many new teams don't know who to ask. As an announcer last year I attempted to visit all teams. On my way around I met many teams that were having troubles. I jotted them down and as I continued I mentioned needs to other teams. Most teams jumped at the opportunity to help. Lots of students were going around checking out other teams. This is great but if they had purpose like seeking teams in trouble, then .......
|
Quote:
At SVR last year, we had a good group of FIRST veterans, but alot of first time inspectors. Mr Roberts, Sean Roberts dad, was the head inspector and did a good job organizing things. We went in teams of two. I was paried with a adult enginner type from one of the teams that was compeating there. We were able to ask each other for clairification on things, and two eyes are better then one when looking at a robot that you have never seen before. Looking at things that you have never seen before, we relied on the students to explain what this or that mecanism did. One of the things that is often used as an example of what is good about FIRST is the shear number of diffrent designs that teams come up with. That makes inspecting all these different machines that much more difficult. About teams that wouldn't pass inspection, I would always exlain why, and would often talk through with them a possible solution and if it that would pass after they made the change. In some cases where significant help was needed, I either sent them to a team with the resources to help, or sent someone from a team with resources to them. FIRST is starting to improve the inspection process. I plan to inspect this season at whatever regionals I attend. I will do a better job then I did last year because I learned a lot about the process last year. I assume it will be the same with others that inspected last year. This will build a better base of inspectors. The more you know. Wetzel ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Because knowledge is power. |
Quote:
Rejecting a team due to a technicality WOULD nullify thier machine until it is fixed. That's the point. What's the point of having restricted parts or rules at all if teams could use whatever they wanted and still compete? The idea of inspectors is to ensure that all the teams competing have valid machines, in order to even the playing field and make sure everyone is following the rules. Like testing atheletes for steriods. To use your example: If a company spent 6 weeks working on a product, say a new kind of light switch, and put it on the market without realizing that it cannot be used due to eletrical codes in some states - they lose. The rules are availible to all, and there is no reason why teams cannot follow them. |
Quote:
there have been issues. words dont have meaning, people have meaning - words are only an attempt to communicate so its very easy for 800 teams to read the rules, and honestly believe different things whats more, to some people the rules will be clear (they will infer the motive behind the rule) and others will question it - might even ask FIRST questions Its easy to see how we end up with machines in the Pits that fail inspection the question then is, what do we do about it? Is the rule that was broken there for safety? to prevent a team from having an unfair advantage? to ensure good design practice? to make it easier for a ref to identify a robot on the field? It quickly becomes subjective. which takes us back to page one of this thread :c) |
Re: Uniform rules and enforcers?
"During my three years in FIRST, I've noticed that FIRST is a lot like The Matrix.
Some rules can be bent, others broken, others enforced half the time, others not enforced at all." That is one of the best FIRST quotes I have ever heard. :] |
Re: Uniform rules and enforcers?
This thread is over a year old...Please don't revive ancient threads like this---we can't afford any more portal clutter.
|
Re: Uniform rules and enforcers?
well its good to know that some rookie's know how to use the search function.
Quote:
"During my three years in FIRST, I've noticed that FIRST is a lot like The Matrix. Dang it's confusing" :p |
Re: Uniform rules and enforcers?
Quote:
Wetzel |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:57. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi