G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester

[Joe Johnson]

I am surprised that FIRST had NOTHING to say about rule G10 in light of the fiasco (yes, I think we can call it a fiasco) that happened in Dallas Week 1.

Seriously, if ever a rule needed some clarification, it seems like this one does.

G10 DRIVE TEAMS may not cause significant or repeated delays to the start of a MATCH.
VIOLATION: The offending ROBOT will be DISABLED

Not to mention this jewel of a rule penumbra in the blue box: "DRIVE TEAMS are expected to stage their ROBOTS for a MATCH safely and swiftly. As a guideline, ROBOTS should be configurable in fewer than sixty (60) seconds."

What should teams plan on for Week 2 and beyond? Will the Dallas Disable become the norm? Should the crowd start a countdown chant for each robot?

Seriously though, I am really surprised that FIRST has not spoken up on this topic.

Dr. Joe J.

[Batterink]

They posted a blog about investigating particularly this situation further.

[pntbll1313]

As the Blog says, they are still gathering information, and "will have more to share once the facts are in."

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

I am surprised that FIRST had NOTHING to say about rule G10 in light of the fiasco (yes, I think we can call it a fiasco) that happened in Dallas Week 1.

Seriously, if ever a rule needed some clarification, it seems like this one does.

G10 DRIVE TEAMS may not cause significant or repeated delays to the start of a MATCH.
VIOLATION: The offending ROBOT will be DISABLED

Not to mention this jewel of a rule penumbra in the blue box: "DRIVE TEAMS are expected to stage their ROBOTS for a MATCH safely and swiftly. As a guideline, ROBOTS should be configurable in fewer than sixty (60) seconds."

What should teams plan on for Week 2 and beyond? Will the Dallas Disable become the norm? Should the crowd start a countdown chant for each robot?

Seriously though, I am really surprised that FIRST has not spoken up on this topic.

Dr. Joe J.

I'm not sure what there is to say about the rule, they clearly state a 60 second setup limit, the strictness of enforcement is up to the head ref.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by themccannman

I'm not sure what there is to say about the rule, they clearly state a 60 second setup limit, the strictness of enforcement is up to the head ref.

The 60 second number is a blue box guideline, not any actual definition. As a guideline, refs would be free to be lenient during Quals and suddenly decide there's a time crunch and start being more strict during Elims. Dr. Joe is quite right that this rule is extremely vague and subjective as currently implemented and enforced. Even if we stipulate that 60 seconds is the actual limit, there's open questions:

1. When does the time start?
2. When does the time end?
3. How does it affect G10 if you declare order of robot placement matters and teams have to alternate robot placement?
4. How does it affect G10 if there are delays due to previous teams or field reset?

If refs are going to start disabling teams for G10 with little or no warning, then there needs to be a MUCH better definition of what constitutes delaying a match. As it is, it appears refs could punitively disable your robot if you decide robot placement order matters for ALL of your matches and all your matches end up positioning robots Red-Blue-Red-Blue-Red-Blue and taking 4-5 minutes to start because of it.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

I agree - it's a little unclear what G10 really means.

If it's referring to simply taking too long to set up your robot (and I have a hunch that's what the GDC was going for), then that's to be expected - if one team is causing the whole event to run late, then perhaps they should be disabled for a match. However, if a team is, through its actions, causing the refs and other field personnel to hold matches to ensure the robot's legality (what happened in Dallas), then it gets fuzzier.

In some ways, it would be good for this rule to apply even then, as it would force teams to make robots that are easily proven to be safe and within the rules. However, in other ways, it would stifle creativity - many robots every year are right up against the legal limit, and if teams thought they could be disabled for an almost-illegal-but-not-quite robot, the amount of variety in robot designs would decrease significantly.

So yes - it would be nice to see a clarification on G10.

EDIT: a few people ninja'd me. I think the clarification is necessary as to who held the match up - the team, via their actions setting up the robot, or the field crew, checking that the robot was within the rules.

[Loose Screw]

Could you explain what happened exactly? It sounds like the intent of the GDC was to allow a wide variety of robots, but they didn't want teams to delay matches when assembling their robot. I know week one events are usually slow (the event I watched was 1 1/2 hours behind at points!), but I can see the same happening with teams. As the season goes on, they'll get better at assembling their robot quickly and safely.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by Loose Screw

Could you explain what happened exactly? It sounds like the intent of the GDC was to allow a wide variety of robots, but they didn't want teams to delay matches when assembling their robot. I know week one events are usually slow (the event I watched was 1 1/2 hours behind at points!), but I can see the same happening with teams. As the season goes on, they'll get better at assembling their robot quickly and safely.

Prior to finals match 3 at the Dallas Regional, 987 was disabled for being too tall.

EDIT: they were also disabled in the semis for supposedly taking too long to set up, thanks Abishek R.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen

Prior to finals match 3 at the Dallas Regional, 987 was disabled for being too tall.

No, they were disabled during the semifinals for supposedly taking too long to set up as well, I believe. I don't recall that rule ever being enforced which resulted in a disable or any warning being given about it prior to when it happened. It was pretty unexpected when it became an issue.

Also, when does that 60 seconds start? Right when the gates open? After we're done waiting for the yellow totes to be set back up by referees since teams may not change the position of the autonomous game pieces, so that we can line our robots up with them?

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

No, they were disabled during the semifinals for supposedly taking too long to set up as well, I believe. I don't recall that rule ever being enforced which resulted in a disable or any warning being given about it prior to when it happened. It was pretty unexpected when it became an issue.

My bad. The finals disable has just been a more visible one than the semis.

Also, when does that 60 seconds start? Right when the gates open? After we're done waiting for the yellow totes to be set back up by referees since teams may not change the position of the autonomous game pieces, so that we can line our robots up with them?

I believe that it starts the moment your robot's wheels touch the carpet.

[Boe]

Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen

I believe that it starts the moment your robot's wheels touch the carpet.

If so we are going to be seeing some assembly while two people are holding the robot off the carpet.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by Boe

If so we are going to be seeing some assembly while two people are holding the robot off the carpet.

I hope not. It was in an email from Kevin Ross (PNW Chairman), and it's not in the Manual, so unless someone has something more official, hopefully this won't happen.

[Brandon Holley]

Along similar lines...Transport Configuration.

I'm curious how it was enforced and implemented in other areas of the country. In South Florida- teams were permitted to exit Transport Configuration once they reached the on-deck queue boxes.

Will this be the norm? Is this how it was done in other venues?

-Brando

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

In South Florida- teams were permitted to exit Transport Configuration once they reached the on-deck queue boxes.

Will this be the norm? Is this how it was done in other venues?

-Brando

This was allowed at PNW Oregon City for the entire weekend, and I heard that it was happening at PNW Auburn-Mountainview late Friday since they were running 2 hours behind. PNWFIRST has stated that FIRST approved this as a temporary thing, so don't plan on it for Week 2 events. It could happen at some events, but I think it was a Week 1 thing.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen

This was allowed at PNW Oregon City for the entire weekend, and I heard that it was happening at PNW Auburn-Mountainview late Friday since they were running 2 hours behind. PNWFIRST has stated that FIRST approved this as a temporary thing, so don't plan on it for Week 2 events. It could happen at some events, but I think it was a Week 1 thing.

An email from Kevin Ross (PNW Chairman) stated that this practice would not be permitted in our week 2 event and that we were expected to strictly abide by the limit. I have also gotten word (indirectly) from the head ref of that event that the 60 second time limit will be enforced.

I really don't think it's a big deal: We knew it would be an issue on day 1 and made design decisions about our robot knowing that the time limit would exist - albeit we did not know how much lenience there would be. If a veteran team creates a robot that simply cannot be assembled in less than, say, 90 seconds, they should be warned, then disabled. We have to play by the rules. If it is a rookie team, perhaps a little more patience would be wise - though not in elimination matches.