Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

Don, thanks for the clarification on your question! I wish I had a clear answer on how to handle such situations. This issue comes up at nearly every tournament I attend, and I'm also looking for the community's perspective on what to do, too.

My personal approach is to always talk to the team as the first step. What to do next depends upon what happens when talking to the team. As a particular example of this, I would like to relate a true story from this year at Championship that I now think I probably should have pursued a little further by directly talking to the team leadership. I'm curious to hear what the rest of the CD community thinks about both your general questions and any specific examples posted herein.

Now on to the specific situation I encountered this year...

On one of the evenings that we were working in the pits, (I'm not sure if it was Thursday or Friday) two students of another team dropped by asking if we had a spare of a motor that they needed to replace a broken one on their robot. They held up the broken motor to show us what they needed, and it was a globe motor. I said to them something like, "Um, we don't have any of those motors with us, because that motor is a globe motor and isn't a legal motor this year, as it wasn't in this year's kit of parts." The students said, in a mostly-surprised sort of way, "Huh, another team told us that, too!" They then proceeded on their way down the line of pits looking for another team from which to borrow a motor.

From the first instant they left, I wasn't sure exactly what to do. I had clearly let the team know that they were in violation, which I personally feel is an important first step in "reporting a rule violation" against another team. However, it wasn't clear to me whether or not the team would do anything about it -- when these students returned to their pit area would they tell their team leaders that the motor was illegal? If they did tell the team leaders, would the team leadership do anything about it?

I didn't know the team number, but later that night I wandered around the pits to try to find the team with the offending robot. The team wasn't in our division, but was instead in a different division (Curie, I think). A quick look revealed that there was clearly a globe motor on their robot. I then looked up at the standings board to find out where their team was listed. They were listed somewhere around the bottom quarter of teams. From the combination of where they were placed in the standings and a visual assessment of their robot's capabilities, I speculated that they were not likely to be charging up the standings. In the interest of leniency and trying not to make enemies with a team I didn't even know, I ended up deciding to carry the issue no farther. I stopped by the robot inspection station (which was empty at that time) to confirm that the robot was inspected according to the whiteboard, but didn't do anything further. For all I know, the problem was found by the inspection team and the team was working on fixing the problem.

Now, particularly in light of this discussion, I wonder if I really did the right thing. I now feel that I should have talked to some of the team leadership to let them know about the problem. If nobody else ever ended up noticing the globe motor on their robot, this team might end up using a prior KoP motor on their robot next year, in which case my having not let them know about the problem more explicitly could make things very difficult for them next year!

How would others suggest handling this kind of thing?

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

So at what point does the decision become inportant? Who decides where that point is? Should 'other factors' (such as running the machine shop) matter in that decision? Is it right that that decision point may be different at different regionals?

I'm sorry Jason, but I have to disagree with you. Allowing teams to play in violation of the rules (even the ones that 'dont give a competitive advantage') is wrong, and sends the wrong message to all teams (that the rules are not for everyone).

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

Both Don and Ken have raised some valid issues that mentors need to think about. Unfortunately, not all teams are open to dialogue with other mentors. If you know the mentor(s) on the offending team and feel you can approach them with the problem, they might be truly happy that you let them know before a LRI or ref points it out. The sooner the better. I would quietly call them over to some place outside the pit so you can have a one on one dialogue and see what happens.
In most cases that involve rules violations on the robot, as Ken has discussed above, the LRI is good person to turn to. I personally would like to know if the robot passed and who the inspector was. It could be they missed something in the heat of battle or they weren't checking everything on the inspection sheet for the robots they checked. In either case, it is an inspection issue and the team needs to correct it with our (LRI) help. Lead inspectors are chosen for their talent to point out a problem, discuss ways to correct it, pass info along to the head ref and make the other participants know that there are people who are trying to keep the playing field as level as can be. This year in particular, we were in a position to point out to teams that although the majority of their design was compliant, there were occasions where the team did violate or seem to violate the rules. i.e. ball intrusion designs, bumper perimeter violations as parts wear, aggressive play, assemblies not tied down.

You as mentors should not have to worry about approaching the team and you should not find yourself allied with a team that gets called for an inspection issue when they have been playing all weekend and your match will put in #1 or move you out of the picking. Universally, I don't think there is any adult or student who wants to win because the other alliance gets DQ'd for something.

I am asked to check for items listed by Don all the time. In about 90% of the cases, the team is compliant but something is just on the fringe. i.e. From the stands, a team's kicker looks like it extends outside the bumper but on inspection, there is a mechanical stop that prevents it. Game play issues should be asked of the head ref and that is easy during driver meetings or just following a match. Connection issues are best handled through the FTA who has the tools available to diagnose most issues.

LRIs are really nice people. If you find that someone has pointed out a rules problem on your robot, come and find the LRI and explain it. We will check it over, discuss how and if it needs to be changed and will inform the ref that things are progressing. In many applications, it is a simple matter of removing a breaker to turn an offending motor into ballast. We want your students to have a fun and quality experience and we will do what we can to make that happen.

If people would want to open the discussion, I can certainly try to list some of the really odd things inspectors came across in inspections this year.

ps. It is not uncommon for a team to modify their robot after inspection and not reinspect until finals inspection. A team that adds something that is illegal may have other teams copy that mod thinking it is legal to do so. I believe many "I passed at the last regional" statements may in fact be due to this modification. If a team does not place high enough to be finals inspected they will ship a robot that is non-compliant to their next event.

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

No need to apologize, Daniel, because I don't think we are disagreeing! As I concluded my post,

I was merely trying to provide some context that, in my mind, helped me to understand why the decision might have been made to ignore what was clearly a bumper rule violation.

As I have posted elsewhere, I don't think there is such a thing as a minor or insignificant rule, and I'm a big supporter of 100% firm enforcement of all rules (at least at FRC events... I'm a bit more lenient doing VRC inspections). While I was surprised to see this rule not enforced in Seattle, I wasn't offended, worried, or concerned. In the context of the event, I can understand the Lead Inspector's discretion, even if I would have likely made a different call.

(Respecting a decision) != (Agreeing with it)

Jason

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

I'd love to hear it! Perhaps in a different thread?

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

I kind of have a problem with what you are asking. Here's my reason why...
Rules are put in place to make the world safer. Whether it would be laws or guidelines, laws are put in place to make the world safer. Why would teams knowingly not follow a rule. It is unlike FIRST Teams to disregard a rule just because it means more work. They would be putting themselves at risk as well as other robots.

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

T,
You are absolutely right. Very few teams knowingly break the rules. I can count on one hand those that I have personally seen. Many teams, however, don't read all of the rules or only read what they want to believe. i.e. the rule pertaining to maximum size of pneumatic cylinder is read as 'I can use any cylinder' or 'we have always used Globe motors so I am using a Globe again this year. Gee, where is that Globe motor that came in the KOP? OK, I'll just use this one from stock'. This is where the inspector really earns their pay. How do you tell a team that they have the wrong motor when their entire design relies on the use of the illegal motor. There is no easy way to do that but it must be done. I find that openly discussing it with the mentors and students in their pit is the best way. You get the majority of the team hearing the same message. Then you can start to discuss alternatives, how to function without the illegal part, how to establish a timeline to correct the issue and what can be done to compete with the robot in the next match. The first reaction will usually tell you how the next few minutes are going to progress. If the team says "OK, what are we going to do to correct this?" they will fix the problem and my presence is no longer needed. If they argue, I will have them read the rule and see how they interpret it. Again they generally see the difference and find a way to correct it.

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

This is absolutely the most difficult task of the robot inspector. How this sort of situation is handled can impact a team's entire FIRST experience, positively or negatively.

From my experience, this sort of dramatic non-compliance happens 2-3 times at each regional. I have found that the EARLIER this situation is detected, the better the outcome will be. This is why we inspectors ask the teams to begin their inspections as early as possible, and this is also why we go out to the teams as soon as we can, to find these things.

Finding a major non-compliance and addressing this with the team is a delicate and sensitive situation. How the detection came about is really beside the point. Sometimes this comes from another team, sometimes the inspectors see it first. I feel that if another team sees this, they should immediately come to the Lead Robot Inspector, as this can be a difficult situation to handle. Here is how I usually handle it:

1. Gather the team's pit members around the robot (adults and students), and point out the infraction (for example: this Globe motor is not legal this year). Point out that this motor is not allowed on the robot.

2. I am ready to cite the rule. The immediate reaction of the team is to be defensive. They don't believe that I am correct. I listen to them, and explain the facts of the rule and possibly some background as I know it. ("yes, I was frustrated that this motor left the kit this too, but it is simply not legal")

3. I offer them ways to help. For example, another team has a similar mechanism done with a legal motor, maybe they can talk to that team to get assistance. This step is key in getting them to look at this situation as positively as they can, instead of just fighting about it.

4. I remind them that they will not be legal to pass inspection with that motor on their robot. I tell them that I will check back with them later. At this point, I usually leave them alone for 15-20 minutes, to let them go through an acceptance process on their own. This lets them get over their frustration (hopefully), and allows them to devise a preliminary plan. I know that I just dropped a bomb on them, and I need to let them recover without me micro-managing the situation.

5. Usually, one of the team members find me and they want to show me what has happened before I get back with them (LRI's tend to get busy with other teams). At this point, 90% of the time, the attitude of the team has changed from defensiveness and disbelief to understanding and productiveness. They usually appreciate the help already provided in #3 above. If not, they may need more help. Sometimes, they are very discouraged since this motor may be an integral part of their strategy. If needed, I may ask questions and try to get them to look at a simpler strategy. ("can you push balls into the goal?")

I have seen inspectors who don't do much work on #3 and #5. They just cite the rule, dropping a bomb on the team and then walk away. This easily damages the experience of the team. If the inspector listens to the team and works with them to suggest ways to be compliant, and then pays attention to their progress, then the team can have a very positive experience. Just how positive this experience depends on how early this situation is detected and how tactful the inspectors and other teams (if they detected it) handled the situation.

I hope this helps the discussion, from an inspector's viewpoint.

Andy B.

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

Andy and Al:

If there is a glaring infraction, do you bring it up as soon as you notice it, or do you try to inspect everything and then bring up the infraction along with the list of other minor improvements you want to see? I am interested in Inspecting next year and I am curious as to your process. Do you stop the inspection process as soon as you see a glaring and intrusive violation? I am assuming a glaring yet easy to fix violation, you would continue on, but for something like an illegal motor in the drive-train, you know this will be a major re-work. Does it depend on the teams reaction?

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

If I see a glaring issue of non-compliance that is as significant as an illegal motor, I would stop the inspection process completely. At that point, I would tactfully focus and seriously address that issue. If there were other issues, such as electrical tape missing from battery leads or other easily-fixed things, I ask them to not worry about them for now and focus on the big issue. Essentially, I would stop the inspection process and have them concentrate on that issue as described above. Then, after that issue was handled, we would pick up where we left off. This pause in the action may take 3-4 hours of focused work.

Andy B.

Andy

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

And of course, to avoid the illegal motor -- and several other issues -- it is always a good idea to list at the very beginning of the brainstorming process what your resources are (including but not limited to the number and type of each motor, cylinder, and servo allowed). All teams should know what resources they have to work with right away, so they know how many of what they can task to which functions.

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

IKE,
It depends on a lot of factors. If it is a major design issue as Andy has pointed out, there is really no way that the robot can play as is so the major issue has to be addressed right away. These can be more than the allowed motors in the drive system, the robot is too big or too heavy, has the bumpers mounted in the wrong area or not supported, etc.
If an actuator motor is illegal and the robot can still drive and perform other functions, then it is simple to remove the breaker while the team decides what is best and how to proceed. If a mechanism is illegal for some reason, a team can tie it down or disable in any fashion they wish. A team should not be allowed to play with these glaring violations but they should not be prevented from playing if we can make the offending item disabled or unpowered. A 28" cylinder for instance, is just so much ballast if the tubing is removed and the shaft is tied in place.
Good inspectors will do everything they can to get you playing. Many years ago, Andy and I were inspecting at an event. Andy found a team with an illegal motor and brought it to my attention. Both of us approached the team, identified the problem and started to discuss a solution. The team was really downhearted, both mentors and students as this device was their main strategy and they challenged the rules. We gave them a copy and showed them what rule we thought applied and left them to read and discuss it. They came back and agreed with us and said they would remove the motor. We offered help and suggestions (you can't hardly get better mechanical help than Andy) but they said they would just disable and we continued with inspection, which they passed. A short while later they came back and said they had redesigned with a legal motor that had more power and better response. They thanked us profusely and went on to place very high for that weekend. One of my best success stories.
As to minor issues like taped terminals, frayed wires, obvious sharp edges, etc., I have the team start working on them while I continue with inspection. I can guide them and show them the best method, inspect their work while I am there, test the fix etc. If everything else passes, I will tell them to continue working while I get signatures and the sticker and that is usually enough time to complete or get most of the way there. I would encourage you to inspect IKE. Plan on spending at least an hour or two working along side an experienced inspector. If you want to come to Chicago, I would be glad to show you the ropes. You have to ready though, I go pretty quick and talk fast.

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

To me, the only reason a rules violation would be allowed would be in extreme cases (Dean Kames signs your bumpers is the only thing that comes to mind.), otherwise, you are realy cheating GP, competing with an illegal robot. To me, an illegal globe motor should prevent you from coming on the field until you fix it, given that it is such a major infraction. If it is something smaller, 488's bumpers for example, then you should be let on the field, just dont pass inspection until its fixed. Either way, the rules are for all teams, no matter thier experience or skill level.

just my $0.02

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

This has become quite an interesting thread.
I am a strong believer that rules are for every body. But I'm not sure it's possible to fix everything, although should be tried.I know that my team is small, 15 kids, and this year has done so much for others, it became a bit load. I remember calling kids from other pits, and they said that they are helping there, I needed to yell at some of them: "I know this is important but we need you,our robot has it's own problems, I'll get someone else to help", and then I would go to a strong team and ask them to help. This is something that a lot of teams experienced(mostly the strong based teams), I know that if there were more work it would have gotten done, but it sometimes really hard, and not as worth as the kid who worked his butt off for 6 weeks not getting to see his own team play.
So illegal motors should be replaced, never seen a drive-train with illegal motors, so they will minimally will be able to drive their bot. Maybe play some D, until the problem is fixed.

A good solution would be to me is an early inspection. like the night before.
There is a limit to what your allowed to add, and you must wight anyhow. This way inspectors can have a brief look and see anything serious like an illegal motor. and point it out to the team, so they'll have a chance to go to their shop that night or early in the morning and on the next day be prepared to fix this early enough. Things like wire colors, are things that can be fixed in moments, changing a motor sometimes requires preparation to be done quickly.
This inspection cannot be full for obvious reasons, but it might spare time from the inspections the next day. I really think this could save valuable time for teams, and give them a fair opportunity to fix the problem(cause most of these things are done unintentionally).

Re: Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question
 

Yoel,
Inspectors are asked to start the day by walking the pits, introducing themselves to teams, and looking into robots for glaring problems. In those first few hours of a regional, few teams are coming in for inspections so there is time to see most robots and train inspectors. Experienced inspectors have a feel for seeing when team is in trouble, when they are stressed out, when something is not right.
By far and away, our most challenging teams are those that show up late (more than hour after pits open) with no students, delay opening the crate, don't bring tools or the unused KOP parts, no bumpers, no signage, and have never driven the robot. It is like starting a week behind schedule for the inspection staff.