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

Al,
That's good, I really didn't know/notice this :),
And I understand what your saying is a major problem, I know this year I started thinking about it, they dragged inspections this year in Israel for quite a long time for like 10 teams who had problems. All mostly due to the things you mentioned.
I guess there is no real solution, but to get the teams working better for next year.

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

Really? My perception is that at FLR, robots are lining up at the inspection station seconds after they get their robot uncrated!

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

Pat,
We generally will see a few teams before 11AM but anyone who comes over for a weigh in just wants to know how the official scale matches with their weight back at the shop. With the rule that inspected robots can be in a fill in line for practice, we are seeing an increase in early inspections but not a large amount. That changes at Champs for obvious reasons.

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

As I recall, at the Portland Autodesk regional there were two teams that had bumper colors that did not follow the rules- one team had pale blue fabric and another team had bright orange bumpers.
I was surprised that they were allowed to take it that far from the rules, but I guess FIRST is lax when it comes to rules that don't affect gameplay.

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

But who is "FIRST" in this instance? It's a volunteer inspector at a particular regional. And that's where things get sticky, because the official ruling from the GDC is clear, but it's not strictly applied. Several people have already made a good case for why these kind of decisions are at least understandable, if not fully acceptable.

Here's a related question that's been touched on but not fully explored in this discussion: If a team builds a robot which is capable of violating the game rules, should they pass inspection anyway, and take penalties if and when they violate the rules on the field? Suppose a team builds a possession mechanism that may violate the 3" ball incursion rule, but claims to have a software limit that prevents it. Pass or fail? What if they have no software or hardware limits, but they say their drivers just won't do it? <R19> is pretty clear for the latter case, but leaves me wondering about the software solution. And other areas, such as multiple ball possession, are far murkier.

I know the general policy some years has been to let the robot play, and assign penalties for infractions. After all, you wouldn't flunk a robot for having a drivetrain that is too strong because it is likely to flip other robots over. But when the robot gets on the field, there is an entirely different set of people watching. Moreover, the referees generally have bigger and more obvious things to worry about than a 4" deep ball possession. If I'm remembering correctly, in 2007 where the 84" cylinder rule was the question, robots with the physical potential to violate the size constraint were put on a watch list which was given to the referees. Can anyone who has filled either the inspector or referee positions fill me in on how this worked in 2007 and if it was used again?

I believe the solution here is twofold: First, I would like to see the GDC write the rules in a manner that specifies exactly what is a robot inspection constraint and what is not; <R19> is an example of this done well. Second, there needs to be consistent and tight enforcement of those things that are game play constraints. I realize this is extremely hard. If some of these are too difficult for the referees to judge, then perhaps they need to be made into robot design constraints instead.

Finally, I'll throw in my personal experience this year. We had a motor (on a hanging mechanism that wasn't working) which wasn't clearly labeled, and I didn't know for sure what it was (After more research, I think it was one of the Mabuchis). The inspector asked us about it, and when we didn't give a definite reply, he said, "Oh, yeah, that's one of the drill motors. You're fine." I may not known what the motor was, but I did know that drill motors were not allowed in any of the six years that I've been in FRC. While I don't expect the inspectors to know everything perfectly, this level of negligence shocked me.

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

Steven,
Although inspectors are volunteers we are an extension of the GDC in that we enforce what they have written and we take guidance from them in enforcing those rules.
As far as the three inch incursion rule, we checked for it, questioned teams on it, advised them that perhaps their design was not truly effective. But when the rubber meets the road, the team is the one who, while meeting the rule, will suffer the consequences when their design fails to produce the desired results. If I had a nickel ...
As to the reference of the drill motor, you fail to give the inspector the chance to correct himself. In the heat of the moment we all make a slip, knowing that the motor was legal is more important than immediately calling it by the right description.
As to 2007, if the robot was thought to be able to expand beyond the limits, it was tested for the limit. If the team claimed they had mechanically limited the expansion but the refs still believed it exceeded the volume, then an inspector was called to make the check again. Parts wear and hard limits move so sometimes it is necessary to recheck. Simply being told by the team that they would not run a mechanism to the point it would exceed the volume did not match the rule. Remember that the volume constraint was zone specific, "While entirely inside of its own HOME ZONE, there is no limit to the maximum width or depth of the ROBOT, as long as it remains entirely within the HOME ZONE."