2013 Peachtree Regional

[robochick1319]

Originally Posted by sdcantrell56

The majority of your post was absolutely spot on, but the ending was quite the bold statement. The vast majority of teams use mentor drive coaches and have since I started in this program 9 years ago. Nothing is inherently wrong with that situation.

I agree. This program is about mentors and students working together. So why in the world would you sever that relationship on the field?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by DonShaw

Where the refs went really wrong, is they apparently were not aware of the 'Tournament 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.

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

Re-inspection is whatever the INSPECTORS (not spectators) find is necessary for a robot to comply with the rules. They have the as-weighed weight on hand (I know when I was inspecting, both the inspection and the reinspection weights were written on the inspection sheet). If a device that is added appears to be cutting it close, the device can be re-weighed. Perimeter can be checked on-field, if need be.

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.

FIRST has had mentors and students both on the drive team since 1992--21 years of competition. You'd THINK that if there had been an issue, they would have done something. As for the "mentors doing all the build work"... I'm not going to go into the beating a dead horse other than 1) it doesn't matter and 2) even if it did, there aren't exactly a lot of teams that do that.

[nighterfighter]

Originally Posted by DonShaw

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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

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.

I'm going to start this off by saying that 832 and 1683 were AMAZING alliance partners. I can say that we all had a great time together, 832 and 4509 were pit-mates to start with, and throughout the regional we were exchanging tools and parts. All 3 teams worked hard together, lending tools, parts, and batteries, to make our way through the eliminations.

While it may have seemed that way from the stands, the mentors from 4509 were NOT the only ones doing the additions. There were multiple students (from both 4509 and 832) working together to modify 832's robot.

And, I might be wrong here, but it seems as if you feel that 4509 bullied or otherwise forced 832 to make the modification. This is not true at all. 832 was enthusiastic to make the change and were extremely helpful, in both finding materials, tools, and labor. (As were the students from 1683)

As for delaying the game: The opposing alliance had not placed a single robot on the field yet. All of us were prepared to go on.

As for inspection: The robot inspectors WERE PRESENT DURING THE ADDITION. We were using a tape measure, and the inspectors asked about the starting configuration, and the students from 832 demonstrated the ability to get everything inside the starting configuration. As was previously stated, the pneumatics slowly caused the robot to possibly exit that configuration (Note: This was NOT the reason they were disabled. They lost power to their radio, they were not disabled by the field crew or referees).

As for no mentors allowed to be on the drive team: That's a different conversation for a different time. I'm sure you can find multiple different threads on this subject if you search on Chief Delphi.

And of course, congratulations to 3489, 4026, and 4080 for the victory. Those were some intense final matches, we were proud to have put up a good fight, and lost, to such a great alliance.

[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]

[MikeReilly]

Thanks George, and others, for input. As the Teacher-Mentor of 4509 we will certainly listen to the constructive criticisms. I can guarantee that we believe in the principles of FIRST, and we all want to make the best opportunity for our kids and community, including any necessary improvements and changes. It was a fun season, and my students can't wait to meet today to get ready for next year, and that's so cool!

Congrats to all who participated, to all who were inspired!

[martin417]

As much as I hate to prolong this debate, as one of the mentors that "modified another team's robot", I feel I need to respond.

Team 4509 was the alliance captain for the fifth seed alliance. We chose 832 as our third pick because they could score in autonomous, and because they had a strong drivetrain to play defense. They performed exactly as we wanted them to throughout the elimination matches. Once 4080 started their full court scoring, and won the second finals match, we knew we needed a strategy to stop that scoring if we wanted to win. As alliance captain, our drive team suggested that they add a tall blocking feature to their robot so they could continue their defensive role. The students from 832 came up with the solution and the materials to implement that solution (a piece of 1/4-20 threaded rod, a piece of corplast, and a roll of duct tape). What most people in the stands probably couldn't see was that in that second match, 832's robot was badly damaged. The entire electrical panel was falling out the bottom of their bot (FRC competition is fierce). So while two of the students from 832 held a 150 pound robot 4 feet off the ground for five minutes, two more were seated underneath the bot working to secure the electrical panel. That didn't leave many hands to install the threaded rod and plastic. I and the other mentor that helped only acted as dumb labor. I held the threaded rod, and did turn a wrench, and the other mentor did apply duct tape, all with the help of students from 832. The idea, the materials, and the directions came from 832.

There are those that believe that mentors should have no role in FRC other than to answer questions. While I don't want to flog that deceased equine in this thread, I don't feel that way. I believe that mentors should mentor. I often work with interns at work. If I only answered questions, did not make suggestions or help out at all, I would be failing as a mentor for that intern. The purpose of a mentor is share his or her experience and expertise with someone who doesn't have that experience or expertise. I want the kids to be inspired, and to do their best. If there is a way to do just a little better next match, they should strive their hardest to make that improvement. The strive for excellence is a major part of FIRST, and should not be discouraged.

Having said all of that, I want to re-iterate that our team had a blast at the competition, learned a great deal, and were inspired. We do not regret any of our choices in the selection, and could not have asked for better partners or opponents. Thanks to all that participated, volunteered, and officiated. you were all awesome.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by martin417

There are those that believe that mentors should have no role in FRC other than to answer questions. While I don't want to flog that deceased equine in this thread, I don't feel that way. I believe that mentors should mentor. I often work with interns at work. If I only answered questions, did not make suggestions or help out at all, I would be failing as a mentor for that intern. The purpose of a mentor is share his or her experience and expertise with someone who doesn't have that experience or expertise. I want the kids to be inspired, and to do their best. If there is a way to do just a little better next match, they should strive their hardest to make that improvement. The strive for excellence is a major part of FIRST, and should not be discouraged.

This should be spotlighted rather than seen as re-hashing an old debate. Well put.

[sbrierty]

Team 624 misplaced a large yellow Dewalt bag with game pads, joysticks, and various other cables. We also had a laptop bag with a black dell laptop and power supplies go missing.

We think these were either left behind in the loading dock area or maybe they were mistakenly grabbed by another team.

Does anybody who was at Peachtree happen to have some info on where these ended up or who we could talk to about a "lost and found" from the Gwinnett Center?

Thanks for the help!

[Rynocorn]

Hey does anyone any videos of the elimination matches or know where to find them? We were eliminated in the quarter finals but wanted to have some videos to show our school. Thanks!!

[I-DOG]

Originally Posted by Rynocorn

Hey does anyone any videos of the elimination matches or know where to find them? We were eliminated in the quarter finals but wanted to have some videos to show our school. Thanks!!

Well 624 has match videos of our robot on our website. If you were in any of our matches you can find them at http://gallery.team624.org/CurrentSe...5566&k=XnGbtgz

[Rynocorn]

Great thanks! Yeah you guys beat us in the quarters unfortunately. but I was really intrigued by your robot and it remains to be one of the best I have gotten to see up close this year. Hope to see you guys there next year as well!

[Kevin Thorp]

Originally Posted by Rynocorn

Hey does anyone any videos of the elimination matches or know where to find them? We were eliminated in the quarter finals but wanted to have some videos to show our school. Thanks!!

We (Category 5) posted a Youtube playlist of our matches, Qualification & Elimination.

[Kevin Thorp]

Does anyone know the name or number of the FTC team that had their robot set up in the lobby, near the entrance to the Pits?

[meibnotu]

Originally Posted by Kevin342

Does anyone know the name or number of the FTC team that had their robot set up in the lobby, near the entrance to the Pits?

I believe you are thinking of the Robobugs, though I could be wrong. They were the ones wearing the bright green shirts.

[JohnFogarty]

Circuit Runners.