[GeorgePBurdell]

As the LRI for the event, perhaps I can offer some additional information and input.

The issues with 832 were multiple. It was the mentors from 4059 doing the addition of the blocker and not the kids from 832 from what several of us saw watching in the stands. It was in my opinion poor judgment of an experienced mentor to place 832 is such a position and I do not hold 832 accountable for the mentors actions.

While I agree that it was other than members of 832 who made the modifications, it was 832's robot - and as such, they are responsible for whatever is done in their behalf. If they are not in agreement with what is being done, they shouldn't allow it.

Here is a list of the infractions as some of us saw:

There are several rules that were broken.
R04
In the STARTING CONFIGURATION, no part of the ROBOT may extend outside the vertical projection of the FRAME PERIMETER, with the exception of minor protrusions such as bolt heads, fastener ends, rivets, etc.

And this is the main issue here - when initially inspected, the robot demonstrated the potential to exceed the established frame perimeter - but also demonstrated a means for constraining itself to a legal configuration. The team was cautioned several times in que as the potential was again noticed by inspectors, but as the team confirmed their intent of using a pre-charged pneumatic system to constrain the system, it was allowed onto the field.

**as the match was being counted down, 1-2-3, the head inspector saw the robot fall into a position outside of its perimeter

When called to the field for an opinion, I informed 832 that they were outside of the frame perimeter, and as such, were not in a legal configuration. The machine was manually pushed into the elevated configuration and an attempt made to secure it with duct tape. While it was placed in a legal configuration, as noted above, it did sag to a position outside of the frame perimeter just before the match began - and the robot was allowed to operate.

G07 Teams may not cause significant or repeated delays to the start of a match. Noted D. Installing bumpers, or any robot maintenance or assembly, once on the field

** this was clearly violated as they let the team come back on the field in an attempt to get it into a legal starting configuration and/or delay

This is a referee call - and while I can't disagree with this opinion, it is a judgement call for the refs. I do know they were ready to pull the team from the field but did make the call to allow the match to proceed. It was a stress situation for all and it is always easy to Monday morning quarterback, they made a tough call - and I must support that call.
G05 Confined to Starting Configuration

Where the refs went really wrong, is they apparently were not aware of the 'Tournament Rules'
T07
Any ROBOT construction technique or element that is not in compliance with the ROBOT Rules must be rectified before a ROBOT will be allowed to compete or continue competing. ROBOTS must fully pass Inspection before they will be allowed to compete in Qualification or Elimination MATCHES.
T08
At the time of Inspection, the ROBOT must be presented with all MECHANISMS (including all COMPONENTS of each MECHANISM), configurations, and decorations that will be used on the ROBOT during the entire competition event. It is acceptable, however, for a ROBOT to play MATCHES with a subset of the MECHANISMS that were present during Inspection. Only MECHANISMS that were present during the Inspection may be added, removed or reconfigured between MATCHES. If MECHANISMS are changed between MATCHES, the reconfigured ROBOT must still meet all Inspection criteria.

T10
If a ROBOT is modified after it has passed Inspection, other than modifications described in T8, that ROBOT must be re-Inspected.
T07, T08, T10 were violated.

The robot was not modified in secret - it was done in full view of all in the stands. The inspector on the field did look at the change and found it within the rules. As the modification was primarily a deflector device, within the height limits of a legal robot, and capable of being positioned inside of the frame perimeter, it was allowed. The issue was the inability of the team to actually get into that configuration. When I saw the modified robot I too agreed that it was a legal modification. Perhaps not as formally as might have been desired, the robot WAS reinspected after the modification. I will concede that T08 was not closely followed - but then, many teams make similar minor modifications to their machines during the event. I personally was consulted on multiple occasions by teams who wanted to make "modifications" to their initial configuration. These were allowed as long as the robot remained within the requirements of the rules.


The mentors made a major modification to that other robot that was not part of the T08 inspection. It was not reinspected after the modification. It was allowed on the field and continued modification.

As noted above, the machine WAS reinspected.

Re-inspection is going back to the inspection area, being weighed, check perimeter, check 54" rule

Yes, you could take that position - and if this is the official FIRST decision, I take full responsibility for allowing a less "stringent" re-inspection process. It was my opinion that the full re-inspection was not warranted and that doing so would unduly delay the match - and/or remove a contender from their opportunity to compete. If the decision was wrong, it was mine and I'll take the responsibility for it.

Jeff Rees
LRI Peachtree Regional

Feedback is welcomed.


FIRST needs to install a rule that mentors are not allowed to be a part of the drive team. The drive team needs to be made up of students that are part of the team. it is bad enough to see some mentors doing all the build work, at least let the kids drive and coach themselves.[/quote]