View Single Post
  #55   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 17:08
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory View Post
There is zero precedent before the last two years to say this is the case. I have seen numerous cases of teams that were non-compliant with the rules during a qualification match that were told to remedy the situation before going out again, but never have I seen a team that got inspected and was temporarily non-compliant be DQ'ed after the fact (besides 973 last year, but that could be considered an isolated event and not a change in policy).

The precedent was only set this year when HQ decided specifically that this was the appropriate action to take (or backed up the Head Ref).
When I was LRI at Waterloo a few years ago, we informally worked out a similar procedure. If an inspector saw an issue immediately before or during the match, but it was relatively minor in nature, the team would be warned after the match and instructed to correct it. If it was major, and found immediately before the match, the inspector would address it then and there. If major and during or immediately after the match (before scores are posted), it would be reported to a referee, who would apply the gameplay rules, and an inspector would also address it afterward. If found after the fact, the rules would be applied at the point of discovery, and the head referee, FTA and/or regional director would be advised depending on whether the violation was believed to have existed beforehand, and whether the violation was believed deliberate—but no retroactive enforcement of the robot rules would take place.

Our interpretation was that any examination of a robot by an inspector could constitute an inspection, if the inspector elects to treat it as such.1 The process above was intended to ensure a balance between the need for teams to have legal robots, and the need for teams to play. Granted, the rules were slightly different in those years, but I think the core rationale is still consistent with the current version of those rules.

(I would be interested to learn whether FIRST supports that open-ended definition of an inspection, or whether they intend to define the types and scopes of various kinds of inspections more rigourously in the future. Certainly we would benefit from better definitions of the process of inspection, but I don't think it's actually necessary to define separate powers for every kind of inspection—that's too complex, and could cause perverse outcomes.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
...they would ask each and every team, every time, "what did you change?" and then make judgement based on their answer + the robot appearance.
This is the most important aspect of any re-inspection before the elimination rounds. The weighing and observations are essentially to verify the teams' answers to these inquiries, and aren't sufficient without getting an answer to that question.

1 Since that is a subjective standard, it was also important to make clear to teams that an inspector had observed the violation, and was mandating compliance. Note that we didn't address the question of an inspector overlooking a defect by treating that observation as not having been an inspection; some guidelines on that front would be welcome.

Last edited by Tristan Lall : 17-04-2014 at 17:18. Reason: Adding footnote.
Reply With Quote