[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by sdcantrell56

As a mentor for the team in question, this ruling was beyond annoying and just added to the already generally poor inspector quality at the Peachtree regional.

Fundamentally, if the inspectors do something that's really annoying, but in line with the rules, how should fault be apportioned?

Undoubtedly there's an element of inspector's discretion involved—and the rationale for applying that discretion varies greatly from inspector to inspector. And maybe the team ought to have read the rules a little more closely. But in my view, the majority of the responsibility has to lie with FIRST: they make the rules that everyone needs to follow, and when they err, everyone feels the repercussions. Most teams are making a genuine effort to comply, and most inspectors are making a genuine effort to bring teams into compliance (without punishing them, if at all feasible). Obviously FIRST is trying hard too, but it's their competition and therefore their ultimate responsibility.

Originally Posted by Andrew Y.

My biggest concern with the ruling was less with the rule itself but more with what was allowed. We had inspectors come into our pits even before we began the inspection phase and began looking at our robot and bumpers. From listening to the conversation...most of the inspectors seemed to think the bumpers were fine but ONE inspector decided they wern't and had FIRST headquarters called and thats when we got the news that the bumpers were in fact illegal. So we argues and showed R07L but it was still deemed illegal by FIRST headquarts.

Was the one the lead inspector? It's part of their job description to determine whether FIRST needs to be consulted—it's not exactly a vote.

Originally Posted by Andrew Y.

What REALLY annoyed the living crap out of me was seeing teams with dragging bumpers...HUGE V gaps in all corners, no team numbers, fabric that was hanging off, and viptied to the frame of their robots. When i brought this issue up with the inspectors i was told "we needed to get teams out there and passed inspection so we let it slide" WHAT THE HECK IS THAT?! so a team that is prepared is more likely to be scrutinized than teams that didnt?

I suspect that attitude is more prevalent when dealing with bumpers than with other rules. Everybody hates bumpers to some degree (except maybe the GDC?). At any given event, if there's one place you're most likely to see deviations slipping through, it's the bumpers. It's not ideal, but neither is the bumper rule.

Also, as we've seen here (yet again) this problem has a cascade effect. The team then attends another event, where the enforcement ends up being a bit more strict, and it's a difficult situation all around.

(When you compare the difficulties in complying with the entire bumper specifications from any of the past several years to the meagre benefits derived from the bumpers, you find that bumpers are usually a dreadful value proposition. It's no wonder people are so contemptuous of that particular rule.)

Originally Posted by Andrew Y.

what i learned from this....inspect late...better chance they will let you slide.

Also a better chance they'll make you fix something, and you'll miss your first match as a result. (Remember, don't even show up with a human player in that case; your alliance will kill you.) Depending on your team's level of risk aversion, that might not be a sensible game to play.