SBPLI Long Island Regional Disqualification

[Bob Steele]

It is unfortunate that the error in your inspection wasn't caught until the Quarterfinals but nonetheless your bumpers were illegal.
We had a similar incident in the Seattle Cascade regional when a team came to the weighing station with a concave bumper and the inspector didn't know the rule. I was working the BOM entry table as an inspector and I asked the inspector to talk to the Head Inspector for Cascade.
Thus began an argument with one of the mentors on the team and several of us tried to show this mentor that his bumpers were illegal.
No matter what we said... he didn't agree... we quoted from the rules... and then from Q and A... where the question was explicitly answered back in January

see http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=16259

He claimed he didn't have time to read Q and A ....

The real point here is that a mistake could have been made which would have given a team a real illegal advantage on the field.
These types of inspection errors have to be addressed... lesser ones that really don't give a distinct advantage are not as important but sometimes seem to slide.

I wish your inspectors had caught the problem but they didn't (Judges NEVER get involved in inspections by the way... most of them don't even know much about the game at all ...let alone the robot rules.

In our situation we were lucky enough to catch it early and our team pitched in with materials to help them rebuild their robot to make it field eligible.

In the end I am afraid the fault must lie with your team. This particular rule was well questioned in Q and A and there was absolutely no question about its proper administration.

I know that in the heat of "battle" your team felt wronged. I am happy that you have apologized to the person you put on the firing line.... he was only doing his job...

In cases like this... put yourself in the shoes of other teams...If you saw a team taking illegal advantage of a rule what would YOU do?
How would you feel if some team beat you with an arm that was way too long? Or a team that had extra motors that you could not use...??
Would you complain? Some teams would... some teams wouldn't.... I don't think you can fault them either way.

I also don't think you can really fault the timing.

The fault must lie with your team... I only hope that you can reconcile to that and not blame others for your mistake.

I am not trying to be hard on you... you may take this situation and use it and learn from it... or you may blame others and not learn from it... it is your choice...

I wish things had been different for you... but what happened to you is precisely why I, as an inspector, take my job very seriously.

Inspectors are not there to not allow you to play... they are there to help you play within the rules...

thanks for posting this...

[Matt Krass]

I was wondering what had happened to you guys during the event.

It's unfortunate this happened, and I'm glad you recognize that your team made some mistakes and can learn from them.

I think the inspectors should hold some of this bag too, yes their job is hard, no I haven't done it (yet), but as pointed out by a few others, just being volunteers doesn't excuse them from mistakes. This isn't meant as a shot at the inspectors either, its more of a general concern for how we can deal with this in the future without it happening again.

First, I'd like to see some simplification of the bumper rules, also I'd like to see them more consistently located, perhaps with reference images as suggested earlier in this thread.

Second, there should be an official channel for handling these kind of things. Implicitly most people seem content to ask the lead inspector to maybe look over something, but to the best of my knowledge there is no official channel for (discreetly) requesting a team be looked at? I may be wrong on this one, someone please tell me if I am.

This situation is just plain lousy, so let's round up some thoughts on how we can avoid it next time around?

Again, 514, I'm sorry this happened, but I'm glad you're being mature about it.

Matt

[RMiller]

I think Matt's idea of addressing how to fix this in the future is a good one.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

First, I'd like to see some simplification of the bumper rules, also I'd like to see them more consistently located, perhaps with reference images as suggested earlier in this thread.

You can find on here (CD) that I am all for removing bumpers completely: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...0&postcount=30

That said, I don't think it will come to fruition. For a large number of teams, the bumper rules could be quite simple (robots that maximize their footprint). However, the issue is each year a small number of teams have a unique design and the rules need to cover these robots as well (think 148's robot in Overdrive). So, this introduces complexity (and also eliminates some of the potential designs) into the rules. Can it be improved? Probably, though in my initial read-through with an eye for it, it is not obvious. In fact, I would probably end up with it being longer and more complex.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

Second, there should be an official channel for handling these kind of things. Implicitly most people seem content to ask the lead inspector to maybe look over something, but to the best of my knowledge there is no official channel for (discreetly) requesting a team be looked at? I may be wrong on this one, someone please tell me if I am.

This situation is just plain lousy, so let's round up some thoughts on how we can avoid it next time around?

First, I would really hope a different team would mention it to the team in question. After that, I would hope the team in question would ask about it (whether in inspections or to an inspector later).

If a team a different team is still concerned, I personally do not know of a method in particular for a team to ask for an inspector to take a look at another team. I would guess if you could talk to the Lead Robot Inspector and inform him/her of your concern, it would be looked at.

I do know that when I am reffing, if I see something of concern and the LRI is around I will ask him/her to take a look at it (often these are for things that are borderline, such as starting outside the frame perimeter). If the LRI is not around, I might ask someone to pass it along to the LRI.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Cory,
I know there is nothing I can say here that will help. Think of all that follows as advice to the teams attending events that remain this season.
1. Any team must feel they can approach the LRI, FTA or Head Ref with a question about rules and know that their team will not be noted for asking the question. I would not tell you who approached me about your robot and your should know that I would not tell another team about your question.
2. Myself and others work very hard to try and make inspections consistent across all events. Bumper rules are sometimes hard to inspect for inexperienced volunteers. Bumpers protect robots and those rules will not go away.
3. Game rules this year put your entire alliance at risk for inspection issues. Every team you played with should have asked the question either of you or one of the Leads.
4. On occasion, something will get by one person but the chance it will get by everyone who sees the robot in an entire weekend is slim. Unfortunately, in this case, it seemed everyone missed it.
5. Once an infraction is found out, it is the responsibility of the Leads to discuss and come to a conclusion. i.e. Lead Robot Inspector, FTA, Head Ref, Regional Director, etc. In the absence of a clear course of action, any of those above have access to First personnel for a decision.

It is unfortunate that this took place on Saturday afternoon, for both you and your alliance partners. It is worse for the timing. I sincerely hope that this was not your only event this season.
Al

[IndySam]

I have both done inspection and been a referee this year. I'm sorry but to say an inspector or ref shouldn't be criticized is simply wrong.

This problem should have been caught by both of these sets of individuals. They didn't catch it so they should share in the blame.

Ultimately it was the your teams fault especially when you stated that a couple of teams pointed it out that the frame was illegal. Those teams shouldn't have to quote the specific rule to you, you chose not to investigate their advice.

[SudoSammich]

Originally Posted by IndySam

I have both done inspection and been a referee this year. I'm sorry but to say an inspector or ref shouldn't be criticized is simply wrong.

This problem should have been caught by both of these sets of individuals. They didn't catch it so they should share in the blame.

Ultimately it was the your teams fault especially when you stated that a couple of teams pointed it out that the frame was illegal. Those teams shouldn't have to quote the specific rule to you, you chose not to investigate their advice.

We tried to investigate their advice. We got multiple copies of the rulebook and started pouring through both the rules and the team updates. We once again missed the connection between the FRAME PERIMETER definition in section one and the bumper rules in section five. As I stated earlier, we also tried to investigate by going to the head inspector and we were told we could compete because nobody had shown them the rules that made our robot illegal either and they had not made the connection. This was not a case of "We'll cross that bridge when we get there, for now let's use an illegal robot.", we simply didn't see the connection that made the frame illegal in the first place. I had remembered discussions on both the Q&A and these forums, but without the rule declaring our mechanism illegal, I could see how our coaches wouldn't follow a memory blindly.

[scottydoh]

Before myself or anyone else for that matter says anything more, It might be helpful to provide a picture or diagram of the EXACT situation you have on your robot. I'm still not sure I fully understand what happened, as I and most of the people in this thread never got a chance to actually look at the bumpers.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Corey,
The very first Q&A asked about bumper construction...
BUMPER Configuration Clarification
Posted by 2011FRC0498 at 01/12/2011 10:12:53 pm
<R07.A> BUMPERS must provide complete protection of the entire FRAME PERIMETER of the ROBOT(i.e BUMPERS must wrap entirely around the ROBOT). As part of the 100% coverage, BUMPERS must protect all exterior corners of the FRAME PERIMETER. For adequate protection, a full segment of BUMPER must be placed on each side of the corner. Our question is, can we have a "notch"/opening in the front of the robot that would house, say,a claw at the beginning of the match? (as long as other BUMPER/ROBOT rules are met; i.e 6 inches of BUMPER and corner coverage, etc).

Posted by GDC at 01/16/201111:43:09 am
No, this would be a violation of <R07>.

And...

Convex Bumper/Frame Perimeter
Posted by 2011FRC0854 at 01/14/2011 07:57:38 am
I was wondering if you could have an indent in your frame. More information at http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?p=44741 . (Followed by several like questions)
Re: Convex Bumper/Frame Perimeter
Posted by GDC at 01/18/2011 09:23:35 pm
The combination of R07-A and the definition of FRAME PERIMETER prohibit such a geometry.

This is the interpretation defined by the GDC in R07.
I should mention that in addition to the my first post, I feel that we inspectors are an extension of the GDC at events. We are inspecting to the specifications generated by that committee as defined in the rules and definitions of the game. Their answers drive our inspection criteria.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

3. Game rules this year put your entire alliance at risk for inspection issues. Every team you played with should have asked the question either of you or one of the Leads.

Al,
I am not sure if the this was the intended reaction to <T03> (red cards entire alliance if one bot didn't pass inspection) and/or <G30> (penalty for violating robot rules), but I severely doubt that qualification alliance partners are inspecting their partners this closely. Better scouting teams probably have a picture from Thurs (likely pre inspection) and advance game capability scouting (speed of minibot, # of tubes hung). Others teams may not have any info on their partners. Our comp team asks early Friday partners if they have passed inspection (if they were not on the Thursday pass list) but once you see the sticker, no further questions. I doubt that many teams are even aware of <T03>. I guess it is possible while waiting in the queue or after they use the illegal feature for one partner to notice, but that is not something I expect to be the norm. Once you find out your partner passed inspection, <T03> red cards are out of your mind.

While inspecting at a later week regional (Philly), I have found subtly illegal bumpers (still gave them a competitive advantage) on robots that have competed in an earlier regional (including elims). Needless to say, the teams were not very happy to hear it and I was not happy to have to break the news. The earlier the violations can be found, the better it is for everyone involved, volunteers and teams.

Unfortunately, this violation was not caught until it was too late, and cause a terrible situation for a team. This is not a new rule (concave bumpers have been illegal for 3 years, probably will never be legal again) and just moving the definition of Frame Perimeter to a different section should not cause this much confusion (perhaps there should be a blue box that just says "Concave bumpers are not legal"). Veteran teams should know this rule well by now. Inspectors need to know this rule (I know it is hard for rookie inspectors without FIRST experience but it is still a huge mistake the inspector to miss). More than 1 inspector probably saw your robot during weight & size and this is something they all should immediately question (what good is weighing illegal bumpers?). Ref should also know bumper rules and the 84in cylinder rule well since those are the biggest causes of the <G30> penalty (thankfully it is no longer requires a red card). I don't expect refs to know all the robot rules well (such as identifying a illegal motor like an RS555).

Inspectors, like all volunteers, are human and are going to make mistakes. This does not exempt them from their share of the blame, but we need to be prepared to deal with the mistakes. In order to help catch oversights by inspectors, I suggest that all inspection teams have an experienced inspector watching most of the matches on Friday and looking at robots in the queue. Friday is a quieter time for inspectors after all the robots finish initial inspection, and there should be an inspector (other than the LRI) that you can assign to this job. In Philly, we started doing this a several years ago to look for illegal batteries (the old Exide ones, you don't see them anymore), I don't know how many other regionals have an inspector present on the field. Obviously this inspector will not be able to see anything covered by panels, but they will be able to see bumpers, mechanisms in action and notice changes made by the teams (possibly without getting reinspected). They can see who pops tubes & gets <G30> penalties, then try to prevent these in the future. They are really just extra pairs of eyes to find problems.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Brian,
One of the hardest things for inspectors is to have to tell a team they are not compliant when they have competed once or more somewhere else. It is something I have lived with since team volunteers were asked to inspect (circa 2003). We inspect right through Champs because for one reason or another, teams do make it through with illegal items on their robot and often make changes during a weekend that are a violation.
I know from years past that some teams have been able to convince an inexperienced inspector that they are wrong in their interpretation. It is for this reason that I have included rule references in the Inspection Checklist. While I doubt this is the case in this team's adventure, it most certainly occurs. An email went out yesterday alerting LRIs of the bumper and instructing them to train their inspectors to watch for items like indented bumpers in the future. We will do everything we can to prevent this in the future.

[scottydoh]

Again, I request a picture.

From what I heard from a fellow inspector at SBPLI, the modification was only with the pool noodles, and that its was wrapped in a way in which you could only notice the change if you actually touched the center of the bumper, and not by looking at it in the pit or from the field.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Scotty,
That's not really the case. The original poster described the bumper and frame in the beginning of the thread...

Originally Posted by SudoSammich

We had a V shape in the rear of our robot's frame so that it could more easily align the robot with the tower for minibot deployment.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by scottydoh

Again, I request a picture.

Ask Google and you shall receive. Think Al's right.

[scottydoh]

Originally Posted by Siri

Ask Google and you shall receive. Think Al's right.

I wanted to get it straight from the source, but thanks.

And thats exactly why I asked. Many people o n here were working solely on the information provided in the description. The picture clearly shows what was going on, and that is very clearly a questionable design. Now I can agree, that that certainly should have been picked up during inspection.

[nikeairmancurry]

I can easily feel the OP's pain and frustration.. Last year the Same thing happened to us at our 2ND EVENT... we had the well known T-Bot that allowed the soccer ball to pass under out robot because the middle portion was no longer than 3 inches... We interputed the bummer rules differently then the GDC wrote them... Which I agree should be written to just say "NO INSIDE CORNERS"... but at our first event I called all the refs including the head ref to our pit and the head inspector and they all said it was fine... Meaning they must have interrupted the similar to us... It wasn't until a call to FIRST headquarters at our second event claiming it was illegal... And no team at out first regional had an issue with it...

We changed the bunkers and life went on...