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.

I've seen a team show up to a regional with too many of one motor on their robot. They did not compete that way, however.

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?
 

Not a good idea, but a great idea. It would definately keep teams that tend to do some of these things on their toes.

Cheating is all a part of the competition?

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.

I think he's referring to the non-auto mode time. I think all of us know collision is bound to happen during auto time, but in human control time, excessive collision between robots generally isn't needed.

Re: Uniform rules and enforcers?
 

Here is my 2 cents worth:

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.