Frank Answers Fridays: July 12, 2013: Question about Q&A

[cgmv123]

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...idays-07122013

Today’s question comes from Alex Tannahill, an FRC Volunteer from Michigan:

Question:

I find the purpose and correct application of the Q&A cloudy. I have heard from different sources that it only exists to provide one interpretation of the rules, on the other hand I have heard it exists to clarify any confusing rules and results should be treated as part of the manual.

I have seen Q&A results presented to inspectors been ignored.

Can you clarify the purpose of the Q&A and if this purpose will change in the future?

Alex
No current team
Michigan Volunteer

Answer:

Alex, thanks for this question.

The Q&A system allows community members to ask clarifying questions about the contents of the FRC Manuals directly to the authority for that particular section of the manual. In many cases the authority answering the question will be members of the GDC. Sometimes, for example when a question is asked about the FRC Administrative Manual, it may be someone from Team Support or another authoritative source.

Q&A responses are intended to provide clarity to the rules in the manual (although I will also say that it is not intended to be an opportunity for teams to get designs or ideas pre-approved by the GDC – thus the common “we will not do design reviews” response). If a question is asked that makes the authority realize something in the manual itself needs to be changed, we will make the adjustment and announce the change in a Team Update. The manual change made via the Team Update may be a rule change or blue box addition that helps make the rule clearer. If we feel the answer to the question is already effectively covered in the manual as it is written, we will not make any changes. The decision to change or not change the manual because of a Q&A response is a subjective one, and as with many aspects of FRC, thoughtful, caring, well-intentioned people may (and often do!) come to different conclusions on any particular case.

As stated in this Q&A response, the manual is the principal authority. Given that the Q&A answers should be direct descendants of the manual, they should also be considered authoritative. It is our intention that if a situation occurs exactly as described in a Q&A question, the appropriate authority at an event will follow the manual and any clarity or fortification provided by an answer from the related Q&A. Note that there may be some subjectivity involved in determining how similar a situation at an event is to a Q&A question. It’s also important to recognize that with the volume of Q&A questions we receive, it’s not reasonable to assume every authority at an event has read and memorized every Q&A answer that could possibly apply in every situation. If you feel a Q&A question is applicable but not being followed, respectfully sharing that is a good approach, but recognize the final decision may still not go your way.

There is no intent to change the overall way the Q&A is managed, however we’re always looking for ways to improve our systems and services. If you have constructive input, please send it to frcteams@usfirst.org.



Frank

Frank Answers Fridays is a new weekly-ish blog feature where I’ll be answering ‘good questions’ from the FRC community. You can e-mail your questions to goodfrcquestion@usfirst.org. Please include your name, team number and where you’re from, which will be shared, if selected.

[Foster]

Ok, so now I'm confused.

Manual says X.

You post a question that says X?

Q&A mavens say X means Y.

And you take Y to the inspection people "Y!!!!" and Frank says "may not go your way".

I've always taken a VEX official response to a Q&A as the "updated rule" And while I do surf the VEX forum, I don't keep all the updates in my head. But if you present a "Q&A now says", I'll bless that.

How does that really work in FRC? If I ask a question and get an answer then I want the "rules people at the event" to honor that. If what Frank says "your mileage may vary" then why ask?

[apples000]

I'm a bit confused too. It sounds like he's saying the Q and A is not for design review, but it instead clears up questionable interpretations about the manual that teams may have. But what is the point of clarifying or giving the intended interpretation of the manual if the judges and referees might not follow them? It still doesn't answer the question of "if I build my robot to the rules described in the q and a, will I pass inspection?"

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by apples000

But what is the point of clarifying or giving the intended interpretation of the manual if the judges and referees might not follow them?

The "A" in the Q&A isn't the important part for the GDC, it's the "Q."
The "Q" provides important feedback to the GDC and helps them clear up their verbiage for confusing rules.
As mentioned in the Frank answer, sometimes the "Q" will provide the catalyst for a game manual update, which the referees WILL follow.

[Pault]

I believe what Mr. Merrick is trying to say is 2-fold.

1. Sometimes, the head ref will decide that the situation described in a given Q&A is not exactly the same as the one he is making a decision on. In these cases, he will ignore the Q&A. This might cause teams some frustration, but there is nothing wrong with the head ref doing this. The reason this problem even exists is because the Q&A by nature is situational.

2. There could be a situation where the head ref is going to straight out deny the legitimacy of the Q&A, or refuse to take it into consideration. Mr. Merrick is saying that this can happen, and teams just need to deal with it. And the reasoning behind this is that FIRST needs to draw the line somewhere as to who has the final say in rulings. The game manual and Q&A cannot make decisions at a competition, because they are just words. And the GDC can't make decisions everytime a team at a competition wants them to, because they simply don't have the time and it's not their job. So FIRST has designated the head referee as the supreme judge of all situations at his/her regional.

Now, what I don't like is FIRST's defeatist attitude. Mr. Merrick basically said that if a head ref is making bad decisions, you better hope your not his next victim. Instead, he should be saying "if a head ref makes a decision that you truly believe does not correspond with the rules, please understand that the decision has been made and there is not nothing we can do to reverse that. However, I encourage you to inform us by [insert way to inform them] so that we may properly deal with the issue and make sure it does not happen again." FIRST should actively be trying to ensure that every decision goes exactly as the GDC intended, rather than just accepting bad rulings as a fact of life.

Edit: just wanted to add that this is my interpretation of the blog. I hope that Mr. Merrick himself can provide some clearification.

[dtengineering]

Speaking as a tech inspector, I try to keep up with the Q&A, but don't keep up with it in nearly as much detail as I did when I was mentoring a team. So I won't know ALL of the Q&A when inspecting your robot, and will appreciate it if you know of a Q&A that you think is applicable and bring that to my attention.

I find relevant Q&A responses extremely persuasive, not just becuase they provide insight into how to interpret the game rules, but also because they provide some guidance on how an inspector at another event will likely interpret the rules.

In my experience other FRC volunteers, including refs, have found a great deal of guidance in the Q&A, and while there may be an occasional instance where an official disregards the Q&A, or is unaware of an appropriate Q&A response for a particular situation, I think you will find that Q&A answers continue to be extremely informative and influential in the decision making process.

So the answer makes sense to me...

Jason

[GaryVoshol]

I agree with Jason. With several hundred Q&A's about game rules, it's hard for a ref to keep up. I'm sure it's the same for an inspector. You know the answer to the question that affects your build or strategy, because you asked the question and paid attention to the answer. But we may have missed it.

And then there's those few answers that are just flat out wrong, and don't get fixed until late in build or even during the competition season. Most are minor and don't make a big difference. One example this year was an indication that a robot could get 30 points for climbing interference, and then another 30 points if they actually climbed the pyramid. We could have figured that this would not be possible in the scoring system - yet the Q&A said so until it was corrected.

[nicholsjj]

I agree with Jason when it comes to inspection. I know our team asked a Q&A regarding the window motor gear boxes. We printed the question out and presented it to the inspector in order to prevent any possible confusion.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by Pault

2. There could be a situation where the head ref is going to straight out deny the legitimacy of the Q&A, or refuse to take it into consideration. Mr. Merrick is saying that this can happen, and teams just need to deal with it. And the reasoning behind this is that FIRST needs to draw the line somewhere as to who has the final say in rulings. The game manual and Q&A cannot make decisions at a competition, because they are just words. And the GDC can't make decisions everytime a team at a competition wants them to, because they simply don't have the time and it's not their job. So FIRST has designated the head referee as the supreme judge of all situations at his/her regional.

Yeah, if a ref does this, s/he is a terrible ref. Just telling the truth.

[Pault]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

Yeah, if a ref does this, s/he is a terrible ref. Just telling the truth.

I absolutely agree. But the point is, who is to say that it won't happen. Even the person who asked the original question said "I have seen Q&A results presented to inspectors been ignored." FIRST can't garuntee that their volunteers are going to be good, so Mr. Merrick has to make sure that teams know things won't always go their way. I just wish that after the fact FIRST would have a way to find out about the incident so that they can prevent it from happening in the future.

[rachelholladay]

I think the important thing to remember is that every inspector and referee is a volunteer and that there is no way FIRST can be responsible for the action of every volunteer. I remember a team once saying (on CD) there was one particular rule from the manual (I believe relating to defense...) that made the actions of their robot legal. Since they kept getting penalties getting called on them, the drive captain resorted to carrying an index card with the rule written out so that he could always respectfully and exactly challenge the penalty. If there is one particular rule or Q&A that you think will be sticky, keep a copy of it with you. After all, there is no harm in being prepared. The official may still disagree and you might not get your way, but at least you will have made the point clearly. In sports calls get made all the time that people disagree with, but you kind just have to deal with it.

[Jon Stratis]

Dealing with rulings from event personel that don't go your way is tough. It's not because the event personel are ignoring the rules - its because interpretations of the rules can differ from one person to another, and because with all of our teams a lot of unanticipated creativity happens each year. One example from this past year: Circular robots.

Given the rules at kickoff, there were a couple of different ways you could interpret a circular frame perimeter. Some people thought through this and said a circle has no corners, and as such does not need bumpers. Then the Q&A clarified it (Q203) and everyone knew it needed bumpers... but not how to handle team numbers. So they needed another clarification (Q272) after the first one.

Now, thinking through this logically, without the Q&A at all, we would have ended up with teams showing up without bumpers and having an issue when the inspector says they need bumpers. With the first update and not the second, they could have had issues with team numbers on their bumpers.

Inspectors and other event personel don't ignore the rules or Q&A. But they don't necessarily interpret it all the same as you might, and the teams out there are all extremely creative, causing situations that the GDC didn't necessarily think about ahead of time. After all, I don't think we saw any circular robots prior to last year... who would anticipate they would suddenly be showing up?

For other examples, think of anything really innovative that wasn't allowed (like a mechanism for holding onto the side of a bridge without grasping, per a cleverly worded Q&A), and ones that were allowed but were "game breakers" (like redirecting soccer balls straight from the return into the goal). Also look at robot designes that influenced rules we have today (like the rule against wedgebots).

[drwisley]

I thought the answers were supposed to be frank,
lolz.