2014 Orlando Regional

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Kelly180

What I don't understand is that, why DQ them, instead of having a rematch? They were weighed and allowed to compete but to an error on the inspector, the whole alliance shouldn't be faulted for that. I'm not pointing fingers or anything of that sort. Just felt that there should have been a rematch if this was a misunderstanding. But to the #1 seed alliance, we wish you luck in your other regionals and hope to see you at Nationals.

Obviously a question for the Q&A right?

If an inspector passes a robot that's actually illegal, is the team still liable for being illegal?

Do they (and their alliances, don't forget) get DQ'd from matches when they were in an illegal configuration they were told was legal?

If an "inspection" isn't actually binding or any real indication that a robot is legal to compete, are teams now expected to inspect their alliance mates to make sure the inspectors did their jobs correctly?

Is a team allowed to inspect their opponents' robots (pre or post match) to verify that they actually are legal and the inspectors actually did their jobs correctly?

Also, for all my years in FRC, and my brief stint as inspector and LRI, I don't think I've ever seen any sort of re-inspection form or document. Or any real system for recording this. I've always gone with brief re-inspections and verbal okays from our inspectors before, and everyone's word has always been good enough. If we're going to have to get all bureaucratic about it, I think a lot of inspectors are going to get very annoyed in the coming weeks.

[Duncan Macdonald]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

If an inspector passes a robot that's actually illegal, is the team still liable for being illegal?

Technically the little blurb at the bottom of the inspection sheet in 2 pt font reads

We, the Team Mentor and Team Captain, attest by our signing below, that our team’s robot was built after the 2014 Kickoff on January 4, 2014 and in accordance with
all of the 2014 FRC rules, including all Fabrication Schedule rules. We have conducted our own inspection and determined that our robot satisfies all of the 2014 FRC
rules for robot design.

Of course when that was signed the robot was in a different configuration, and the team honestly believed they were following the rules or they wouldn't have done it. Did the people who made the DQ ruling know an inspector had approved of the modifications? Escalating to a DQ for a team that followed the correct process is the wrong decision. Most volunteer screwups result in a field fault and a replay.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Also, for all my years in FRC, and my brief stint as inspector and LRI, I don't think I've ever seen any sort of re-inspection form or document. Or any real system for recording this. I've always gone with brief re-inspections and verbal okays from our inspectors before, and everyone's word has always been good enough. If we're going to have to get all bureaucratic about it, I think a lot of inspectors are going to get very annoyed in the coming weeks.

I've been an inspector and an LRI this year and that is how we did it. There is no additional form. If our initial was on your sticker we crossed you off our list and you were elimination legal. We pulled two teams out of queue that had made changes; scolded, weighed and measured them with a visual once over and sent them back to the queue.

[Moon2020]

Game Rules: 5.5.2, T6, T7, T8, T10, 5.5.3, and 5.5.4.

Does anyone know the entire conversation that took place out on the field with the Head Ref, LRI, Team 1902, etc.?

Additionally, I cannot fix the process escape until I can identify exactly what broke in the process. The names/descriptions of the two inspectors mentioned in MichaelH1902's post sent to me via a PM would help me ensure this never happens again.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by Moon2020

Game Rules: 5.5.2, T6, T7, T8, T10, 5.5.3, and 5.5.4.

Just to pick one, since the rest all seem to be along the lines of "yes, we can retroactively dq an alliance"

T7: 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.

What robot rules were broken by the configuration? That's still not clear to me.

The response to this makes me think Team 1902 went to the field under cover of night, thinking they could pull a fast one on the Orlando regional and be halfway to Pensacola before anyone was the wiser.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

What robot rules were broken by the configuration? That's still not clear to me.

Most, though not all, rules referencing batteries on the robot refer to the battery, or the one battery, or one battery. (The notable exceptions are the exception for COTS computing devices and the definition of a Custom Circuit.)

The very strong implication is that more than one battery, or battery assembly, is illegal. Now, whether or not a battery (assembly) that is not used to power a robot is actually a robot battery and thus subject to that rule is currently up for debate, or should I say some Q&A/Update clarification.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by EricH

Most, though not all, rules referencing batteries on the robot refer to the battery, or the one battery, or one battery. (The notable exceptions are the exception for COTS computing devices and the definition of a Custom Circuit.)

The very strong implication is that more than one battery, or battery assembly, is illegal. Now, whether or not a battery (assembly) that is not used to power a robot is actually a robot battery and thus subject to that rule is currently up for debate, or should I say some Q&A/Update clarification.

I want to stress the point that there is no rule in the book stating that you may only have 1 battery on your robot. It does however say that you may only have 1 battery power source.

[chris1592]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

I want to stress the point that there is no rule in the book stating that you may only have 1 battery on your robot. It does however say that you may only have 1 battery power source.

On the other hand, it never says you CAN use more than 1 robot battery.

If it doesn't explicitly say you are allowed to use more than one robot battery in any case (whether for power purposes or not), then it is safe to assume it is not legal.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by chris1592

On the other hand, it never says you CAN use more than 1 robot battery.

If it doesn't explicitly say you are allowed to use more than one robot battery in any case (whether for power purposes or not), then it is safe to assume it is not legal.

From what I understand in this situation the multiple batteries on a robot was deemed legal by the inspectors(this may be wrong).

I wouldn't be surprised that next year a rule will be created/changed to include one battery on the robot at any time but until then, this is a very grey area.

[chris1592]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

From what I understand in this situation the multiple batteries on a robot was deemed legal by the inspectors(this may be wrong).

I wouldn't be surprised that next year a rule will be created/changed to include one battery on the robot at any time but until then, this is a very grey area.

To further your second point, I would be highly surprised if there is not a clarification of this in tomorrow's Team Update.

[Moon2020]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

From what I understand in this situation the multiple batteries on a robot was deemed legal by the inspectors(this may be wrong).

I wouldn't be surprised that next year a rule will be created/changed to include one battery on the robot at any time but until then, this is a very grey area.

Legality of components can only be decided by the LRI.

[Duncan Macdonald]

Originally Posted by chris1592

On the other hand, it never says you CAN use more than 1 robot battery.

If it doesn't explicitly say you are allowed to use more than one robot battery in any case (whether for power purposes or not), then it is safe to assume it is not legal.

The manual does not tell you what you can do. That's why in the Q&A system there are a bunch of "We cannot comment on specific designs." responses to "Can we use a 3/8" bolt for an axle?".

[chris1592]

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

The manual does not tell you what you can do. That's why in the Q&A system there are a bunch of "We cannot comment on specific designs." responses to "Can we use a 3/8" bolt for an axle?".

I understand.

What I was trying to point out to the person I quoted was that just because it doesn't say an item is legal, that it is legal.

An analogy to what I was referring to:

The manual says nothing about the use of a Globe motor...does that mean it is a legal motor this year? No

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by chris1592

I understand.
An analogy to what I was referring to:
The manual says nothing about the use of a Globe motor...does that mean it is a legal motor this year? No

But R29 covers all motors including globe motors

R29
The only motors and actuators permitted on 2014 FRC ROBOTS include the following

I do understand what you are trying to get at but, a lot of those situations are covered.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by chris1592

On the other hand, it never says you CAN use more than 1 robot battery.

If it doesn't explicitly say you are allowed to use more than one robot battery in any case (whether for power purposes or not), then it is safe to assume it is not legal.

This one has been hashed out before. The rules also don't explicitly say you are allowed to use aluminum, but I think everybody agrees that aluminum is allowed.

[Jaxom]

Originally Posted by martin417

This one has been hashed out before. The rules also don't explicitly say you are allowed to use aluminum, but I think everybody agrees that aluminum is allowed.

Nor does it say you can use steel plate for the frame, that you can weld the frame, that you can use English OR metric bolts (bolts are mentioned numerous times, but the measurement units are not), and on and on and on.