Re: About being overweight and exceeding your size requirements – the need for reinsp
 

If the sum of your robot with the sweeper arm and the weights exceeded the 130 pound limit that was in effect for Stack Attack, I think it violated the rules. As I remember it, if you had interchangable components for your robot, all of them had to be weighed and be within the weight limit. Maybe you didn't think of the weights as "functional" but if they didn't provide some performance, why bolt them on?

Re: About being overweight and exceeding your size requirements – the need for reinspecti
 

So robots which don't pass inspection will be passed by a show of hands by the participants? So the popular sacred cow teams would most likely get a pass and the unknowns probably wouldn't?

Re: About being overweight and exceeding your size requirements – the need for reinspecti
 

That is not what I meant Tim,
It has nothing to do with being popular at all. IF the inspectors find a minor violation that cannot be corrected in time (perhaps the team failed to have a clear view for the refs to see all of the balls at the beginning of the match) - they may have gotten a conditional pass or something minor (that doesn't include being 13 lbs over the limit).

Look everyone - the inspection process with all the various rules is difficult to administer and make everyone happy. There will be times when minor infractions occur and the inspectors need to decide what course of action to take. They can either try and stick to ALL of the rules and upset those that think the inspector MISSED some putting some at a disadvantage in some way, or they can use some judgment as to whether the violation gives the team a competitive advantage. Again gross weight violations like 13 lbs is NOT what I would have considered a conditional pass - and I'm sure the inspectors expected that team to comply.

I'm just afraid that if the inspectors wanted to really crank up the inspection to the finer details that we all think we have done correctly, MANY teams would NOT pass a complete inspection. Over the years we have had many inspections at regional events subsequent to being inspected at previous events where the inspectors at the 2 different events focused on different aspects and from just casually observing the process - there will always be some differences. For everyone in the "strictly follow the rules to the T side of the argument - be careful what you ask for. I'm of the opinion that with so many rules in th rule book now, the HEAD Inspector is the person that should make the call and as long as that person is being consistent to ALL participants and communicating to everyone where, if any conditional boundaries are, that is fair enough for me.

All I suggested is that ALL teams would then be provided an opportunity to object to the boundary conditions and those that violated them would need approval by ALL teams to compete under those conditions OR if ANY team objected, they and ALL others would have to meet the requirements without conditions.

I retract my comment about putting GP to the test - I have thought about it and don't believe that GP is at issue, but perhaps sportsmanship is.

Re: About being overweight and exceeding your size requirements – the need for reinspecti
 

It was not a battery that caused the weight problem.

I am a teacher for the team that was the first alternate at Detroit and as soon as it became clear that one team was having difficulty making size and weight we were told to be ready to go. We had our bot reweighed and sized and passed our second inspection. Meanwhile the other team was working feverishly to make size and weight. At this point we only told our drive team that another team was having problems making weight and we may be called up.

Of course, the other adult leaders on our team heard what was going on. For them to see another team get into the finals by possible "illegal" means has definitely caused some tension on our team that day. We understand it takes an incredible amount of time and effort to get through the build season and competition, but gracious professionalism still should be our main goal. Think of the teams that played fair and were penalized as a result. If you tried to do something against the rules and get caught, take responsibility for your actions. This is what we try to teach our students, why shouldn't adults who are role models also follow this? I now have to deal with team members saying, "yeah but team ***** did it and got away with it so why can't we?". Is this what FIRST is about today? I personally hope not.

Re: About being overweight and exceeding your size requirements – the need for reinspecti
 

This thread really stikes at the center of GP and sportsmanship.

All teams make modifications throughout a regional. Things aren't working properly, the game is playing out differently than expected, the robot was damaged and needed repaire, etc. It is up to the team to evaluate whether or not they MAY be in violation of the rules, and to self-govern themselves.

If a team is shown to be in violation of ANY rule then it should be up to the head referee to determine if the intent was to break the rule or an oversight. Most teams (I believe) are honest, and rulings against those should be minimal (comply with the rule before the next match). Gross infractions (13 LBS is 1/10th the allowable robot weight) should be consideration for a DQ from the tournement and possibly further sanctions.

Also, one more thing to consider. By not DQing a team you are sending the message that even if you get caught breaking the rules, no real punishment will happen. Had the team been DQed then ALL teams would now be thinking "Maybe we need to check our weight again, just to be sure".


Inform the teams of the rule. Inform them of the punishment. Enforce the punishment. Send the message that violating the rules will not be tolerated. By sending that message, you will seldom ever have to use the punishment. People (teams) will make a judgement if the punishment is worth breaking the rules, if you prove that there is no punishment (or that punishments wont be enforced) then there is no reason not to break the rules. Therefore the rules MUST be enforced.

The above is (as always) JMHO.

Re: About being overweight and exceeding your size requirements – the need for reinspecti
 

At the Arizona Regional Team 39 was over the size limit at inspection. Our shooting mechanism was 1/16" over the limit when we rotated it 180'. Some of our students were wondering how 1/16" "could be such a big deal?" By moving a bracket, we were able to be one of the first robots to pass inspection and there appeared to be no effect on the robot. The rules are meant to make the competition fair to all.

Ken

Re: About being overweight and exceeding your size requirements – the need for reinsp
 

That thier is the part that I am concerned about. the 13 pounds I could see as being the battery, and I wasn't thier so i'm going not going to be the judge and say yeah this is really horrible that a team would do it.

So what I am going to say that is if it wasn't the battery that resulted in the 13 pounds over, then it looks as if this team is in FIRST for the wrong reasons. Yes winning is great and we all love to do it. Not only does it show how good your robot is but it also sparks a little more inspiration in all of the high school students on the team.

But if they had won what then? They had not done it fairly (unless it was the battery). I think this is something that needs to be brought up to FIRST and discussed with them and what should happen.

I really hope that we do not see any more of these threads, because this isn't what FIRST is.

Tim

Re: About being overweight and exceeding your size requirements – the need for reinsp
 

"I was present at Detroit when this happened. There was no battery on the robot. " Steve W.

additional facts
 

sorry I got to this post so late.....

Wow. I am glad this discussion is taking place, but I'm amazed at the amount of speculation from so many people. I think the speculation (and then some responses piled on top) have taken the thread a little off track from where it was headed based on the initial post and some of the great responses.

Some facts from the lead inspector (me):

For those of you who speculated that "maybe it was their battery" please be assured that it was not their battery. They were 13 lbs over without the main battery.

For those who speculated that the scale was out of cal, please be assured that the scale when checked ~6 times over Thurs-Sat was within 0.1 lbs when using 100 lbs of calibration weights. FIRST provides a pretty clear process for doing this, taking into account a number of sources of variation.

For those who have suggested that this team was simply allowed to play while being "out" of inspection, you are incorrect. This team did pass their initial inspection (weight and size), based on two very specific modifications that were required by me. The team actually made one of these changes while the bot was still in the inspection station - it was a 1 minute job. Mentor looked me in the eye and said the other change (identical to the first, another 1 min task) would be made. I passed 'em based on this. Although this was referred to as a "conditional pass" in the original post I think it was actually a "pass" because they met weight and size after making the change.

Changes made following the passing of inspection were the source of the problem here. As was originally stated, there was no remorse from the team. Significant peer pressure was not enough - it took "you won't be able to play" for them to get serious about fixing the problem. This (imo) was not your average inspection/fairplay issue - it was something worse.

Hopefully to get this thread more on track....

The original poster asked for some comments from us.

Team Conduct:
In this case, not-so-subtle peer pressure was directly applied multiple times with no positive result. It took a threat of pulling the inspection sticker. Head Ref described a very specific set of recommendations to the lead student. The team did not follow those recommendations.

How do you think this should be dealt with? Self-enforcement? Peer-pressure? Snitches? Police-state?


Weight Monitoring:
A serious weight gain was detected prior to elims. We do not know how many matches (if any) they ran in an overweight state. We currently depend on teams to monitor their own weight between the time they pass inspection and the time they weigh in for elims.

Do you think we should have more frequent weigh-ins? Should there be a "weigh-in squad" that scours the pits looking for heavy mods being made, and handing out "fix-it tickets" which would suspend a team's inspected status? Should we get FIRST to build scales into the robot starting positions (pleeeease say no to this one :))?

Re: About being overweight and exceeding your size requirements – the need for reinspecti
 

Ken,
I was hoping you'd jump in - Thanks for clearing all the speculation up.

I agree lets keep this on topic - and if I may add, include ways to improve the process/situation and don't start diverting the thread by challenging the suggestions (some ideas may not always meet with your argeement - that doesn't automatically make them bad ideas, maybe it will spawn a different / better idea)

I think we are all looking for a way to improve the situation - so lets focus this thread on that.

Mike

Re: additional facts
 

I dunno, Dave probably already has the scales drawn up in the 2007 field drawings.

But getting back to practical things, I wouldn't take offense if the inspectors announced "Over the course of the qualification matches, at some random point in time, your robot will be checked twice for size, weight, and painfully obvious robot violations by the inspectors." The twice is open for whatever is best for a regional's schedule, staffing, and et cetera. Teams are flagged down after a match and diverted to the inspection station, re-sized, reweighed, and given the once-over for anything obvious, like green neons or big shooters without shielding. Maybe throw in a speed check, just to be sure.

Can it be done? Sure. Will it take an extra inspector or five? Probably so. Is it worth it? I think so--even the teams that do their best to follow the rules might miss something unintentionally, and a second set of eyes wouldn't hurt for that.

Re: About being overweight and exceeding your size requirements – the need for reinspecti
 

Gracious Professionalism should be the rule. I think we must rely on the honesty of the teams. We should not create a "police state" with random inspections. The completion days are hectic and extremely busy as it is. We can't allow a few bad apples to ruin the game for the rest of us.

The only thing I think should have been done differently (knowing that hindsight is 20/20) is the disqualification of the team. Their lack of remorsefulness should have been their undoing.

BTW I think the inspectors do a great job!

Re: additional facts
 

I initially speculated as to how this team might have gotten overweight, and attributed it to inadvertently not paying attention to how their modifications increased their weight. It appears from the posts by Ken and Ron that perhaps they deliberately chose to disregard weight issues.

Do you mean to say this team expected to be allowed to return to the field being oversize and overweight?

Preferably yes. I was in Pit Admin at GLR, right across from the inspection station. Teams were coming back to the scales several times during the day on Friday - after all teams had passed inspection - to reweigh or resize. Sometimes we were asked to call Dan on the radio to come back to inspection to check something. Obviously this was all done voluntarily in the spirit of, "If you change something, make sure you are still in spec."

Given the schedule, it is probable that the team ran in the "as detected" state for at least their last two matches - a win and a loss. Of course this cannot be verified, it is just further speculation. We can't go back and strip a team of results gained, when we don't know whether they were too heavy or not.

Given the physical setup at Detroit, it would not have been difficult to randomly choose robots to be diverted from the blue queuing line to the scales or sizing box. That wouldn't have worked at GLR. I don't like the idea of having continuous inspections - I'm sure the inspectors would like it even worse. At GLR at least one team was challenged in the Finals to have the ball shooter speed remeasured - and they passed. I didn't like that situation either - teams should not be placed in the position of challenging their opponents to verify their compliance with the rules.

A roving inspector, checking what teams in the pits were doing, and requiring reinspection? Only if the inspector could remember the configurations of each robot, and make an on-the-spot evaluation of whether there were repairs or upgrades going on. That's unlikely.

Back to the original post -
One of the things they removed was their polycarb side panels, replacing them with snowfence material. They may have had to remove some functional parts as well. I don't recall what ball-handling devices they had.

Mods: If these comments are inappropriate please feel free to remove them. I am trying to be as GP as possible myself given the situation. Hopefully I am contributing some value to the discussion.

The team ended qualifying matches ranked 13th. I think it is safe to say that they achieved that ranking on the strength of their alliance partners in qualifying. (They weren't the only team to benefit from good alliances. In smaller tournaments like Detroit, it happens. There are only so many really good teams, and those lucky enough to be allied with them, rather than against them, come out ahead.) The also happened to benefit from a match in which the official score differed significantly from the real-time scoring system, resulting in a win rather than a loss. In short, this team was lucky to be in the position of choosing an alliance for the finals.

And again, this is the troubling aspect. The team should have been aware enough of their situation to check their weight as they made their modifications.

I think it was handled as appropriately as possible given the circumstances. It was made known that a team was having problems meeting the inspection, and the top alternate was placed on alert status. It would have been inappropriate to remove the robot from the competition once they were able to pass the inspection - other than the team voluntarily withdrawing. The team was given the benefit of the doubt that the overweight condition was inadvertent.

Should the team have withdrawn? Knowing what I do and reading the opinions of Ken and Ron, I still can't say for sure.

Re: About being overweight and exceeding your size requirements – the need for reinspecti
 

I have been a big proponent of the "random drug test" method to over weight oversized robots. I believe that an inspector should go pull a random robot off the field at the end of every few matches for at least a weight check. Ever since I started seeing teams intentionally show up 5 lbs heavy for elims back in 03-04 prior to elim reinspection being compulsory. I thought the only way to prevent this was through random inspection. The list could even be generated based on the match list before the event. There is a difference between .25 lb over because of zip ties bolts and splints to repair the bot quickly in the pits and 5 lbs.

Re: About being overweight and exceeding your size requirements – the need for reinspecti
 

I highly recommend reading 2006 robot inspection rules <R105> through <R110>.

In particular <R110>, which states: FIRST Officials may randomly re-inspect robots participating in competition rounds to assure compliance with the Rules.

Also, as I read <R106> and <R107>, any non-compliance found at inspection or at re-inspection may result in disqualification of the machine at the event.

I conclude from the inspection rules that the sticker itself means nothing -- reinspection can occur at any time, randomly or for suspected cause. Noncomplying machines may be disqualified when the noncompliance is found.