Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

I would have to agree with that. I still do not get that. I get that they should be inspected, but why is it the alliances responsibility?

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

I think the intent of that rule is that if the partner does not pass inspection, they must be a no-show. If the non inspected team no-shows, then you do not get a red card, but if they attempt to show to get points, then the rule thwarts that.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

I guess. I will be sure to make sure, no matter what, our alliance partners are inspected, or at least for the first 20 or so qualifications.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

To add to that,

While I agree it's harsh, and not necessary, FIRST is clearly going for the Peer Pressure approach. With this penalty, you can bet everyone on the alliance will be pressuring other teams to get inspected, and it will probably work.

Will some unfortunate teams go under because of this? Yes. However in the end it will keep this problem to a minimal.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

Only if they're stupid enough to let a non inspected team try to show up for a match.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

I personally think it's an overreaction to a case that happened last year where a robot that didn't set wheels onto the field ranked in the top 8 for selections.

Personally, dishing out an automatic red card to any team that wasn't inspected would be enough. But to penalize partners...

I agree on the intent; the letter doesn't quite match the intent, though. I'd agree on the peer pressure: either you pressure them to pass inspection, or you pressure them to stay far, far away from the field until they do.


P.S. If you are thinking about volunteering to inspect, do it. When there are few inspectors at an event, inspection takes forever and some teams may miss a match through no fault of their own. I think the AZ backlog last year cleared around opening ceremonies, after having an extra half-hour the night before with more inspectors to clear the line. There were still a couple of teams who had had major issues clearing by lunchtime, but that's "almost normal", and the issues were becoming more minor.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

Having been an inspector for the last 2 years(2009: CT, 2010: CT, WPI, BOS, CMP), I fully agree with you. Last year, I was asked if I was available for the Boston regional, while at WPI, because of a shortage they had. All worked out fine, but I could imagine how horribly things could've gone :ahh:

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

I'm sorry for this being so off topic, but what are the requirements for volunteering at a regional?

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

Pretty much it's be 18 or over (or parental consent) and fill out all the stuff on the FIRST website in VIMS (IIRC, it's experience, where you want to work, contact info, and that sort of thing). That should cover field reset, spare parts, and other "general purpose" spots, like field setup/teardown.

Refs and inspectors have to take a rules test and pass. Rookie inspectors will often pair with veterans for a while on Thursdays.

"Field operations lead" types have to do training at a common location.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

Also consider that bigger tanks take longer to pressurize.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

I am not able to download the file. Anyone else having problems?

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

I can't download it either.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

I just opened it again, and it appears it would let me save it.

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

Can anyone copy and paste the rule changes on this thead for thouse of us that can't open the pdf?

Re: 2011 Team Update #2
 

To sum it up:

Minibots must be deployed completely below the line.

<R66> now amended to include pneumatic cylinders and storage tanks of any sort.

<R92-O> now specifies "electrical hookup" wire (as opposed to metal wire that could be formed into springs, etc)