2014 Orlando Regional - Page 12

Kevin Sevcik · #**166** 18-03-2014, 09:54

I'm amused that everyone's jumping on the battery argument after Duncan and I had that out several pages back.

I'll point out again what I think is a cogent change in the rules. In 2012, the Q&A specifically ruled against counterweight batteries. That year's battery rule had the clause "This is the only battery allowed on the Robot." Plus the same COTS computing exceptions. Which makes it pretty obvious that dead weight batteries aren't legal. That clause is missing in the 2013 and 2014 rules.

2013 had a single relevant Q&A: "Can we use more than one battery?" "No." Which is somewhat vague as to the use of said battery. As of Orlando, there were no relevant Q&As.

We're always reminded that this year's rules aren't last year's rules, and the omission of an obvious and clear prohibition against dead weight batteries really would make one wonder about the current feeling on the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GearsOfFury

On this year's inspection checklist - which is used as the "official" tracking document at the regionals I've inspected at - there is a section for re-inspection sign-off:

http://www.usfirst.org//sites/defaul...list_Rev-B.pdf

(Reference the "Reinsp" and "Final Insp (initial)" areas). It appears on last year's form, as well:

http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default...nChecklist.pdf

I don't know if this section is used religiously, because I've never been an inspector on Saturday afternoon. To me, in general, the official re-inspection should be tracked here, particularly if it's not done by the LRI.

You may as well have kept going to embarrass us further. That line does, in fact, go back to 2011, and I suppose I'd failed to notice it the past 3 years on inspection. I'm not usually the one signing the form, anyways. I suppose it is both the team's and the inspector's responsibility to make sure that gets signed each time you get re-inspected. So I guess I'll be annoying our LSR inspectors after all.

Moon2020 · #**167** 18-03-2014, 10:58

Inspection does have a process, although it is not a formally written process with a big document to script an Inspector’s every move. Part of the process is that Inspectors have to take an on-line test regarding the Robot Rules and pass it to be able to inspect at a Regional. Different Regionals do some process things a little differently, but we all are tasked with making sure that all the robots are able to play in Qualification matches on Friday. That involves helping the Teams troubleshoot, guiding them to a solution if their robot is not ready for the field, a formal Inspection Checklist as the record that they have been inspected, a white inspection sticker stuck on the robot after inspection for Qualification matches is completed, and a color dot with the inspectors initials. Some robots breeze through inspection with no issues on their first try first thing on Thursday morning while other robots need several tries, resulting in a partial inspection. The Team may have to work on their robot into Friday afternoon to become compliant with the Robot Rules, resulting in missed qualification matches because at some point, the Inspector has helped all they can to get the robot on the field for Qualification matches and the remainder of the work is up to the Team to complete.

If anyone who has not been an Inspector and/or Inspection Manager would like to Volunteer as an Inspector or Inspection Manager to learn what the Inspection process is, I will be at the South Florida Regional and at Championship to help anyone who wants to learn the Inspection/Inspection Manager process. What you will not see if you join us at the event without having signed up for Inspection in advance is the planning the LRI and IM have to do starting back in the September/October prior to the kick-off date in January and all the communication that happens with the Inspection Team after kick-off and up to the Regional.

z_beeblebrox · #**168** 19-03-2014, 00:09

I was going through the QA and I found this:

https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/...ng-any-matches

Though it is about motors and not batteries, it does make clear FIRST's interpretation of the rules.

sportzkrazzy · #**169** 19-03-2014, 01:38

The Orlando Regional is always jam packed full of excitement and it sure did not disappoint this year. First off I want to thank teams 180 and 4901 for pairing up with us. 180 was the perfect mix of drive-train, ball security and eases of pick up that we where looking for. Spam definitely where the kings of the truss at the Orlando regional. 4901 we where surprised you maid it back around to us. Never missing an auto shot throughout all of eliminations def helped our alliance out a ton, not to mention the shut em down defense that you guys had after teleope started. We hope you come to Florida again as you will defiantly be one of the up and coming teams. The Bionic Spam Squadron alliance was defiantly a force to be reckoned with.

179, 1251, and 79 what a great finals and three really awesome robots as well. We had lots of fun playing against you guys as usual you brought some of the best Orlando regional action and I would expect nothing less from the three vet. first teams that you are.

624, 233, and 1902 it felt really bad to see you guys go out the way you did. I have played along side many of you year after year and I know that you would never willingly and knowingly violate any first rules that you know of to be in existence. I know what type of teams and people you are and have no doubt in my mind that the events transpired as you have stated. When starting my FIRST career as a mentor I looked for someone to emulate, a drive coach to strive to be like, and someone to ask for guidance during my early years. I found this in Andy and I know neither him Kit or any of the guys from 233, 1902 (Zach, Ryan, Brendan, Matt) or 624 would ever violate a rule purposefully. I think FIRST needs to re-exam how they handle this type of situation in the future and come up with a better way of handling it. That is all I have to say about this other than those would have been some of the most intense finals FIRST has ever seen....

801 and 1592 do not plan on stopping here though, its off to the finger-lakes regional we go. With all of our issue sorted out and some improvements being made teams 801 and 1592 will definitely be teams for Florida to be proud of. Oh yeah and then championships after that! =) See you there 180 and 4901. Good luck to all other teams competing in South Florida and to pink in Chesapeake!!!

801DOC · #**170** 19-03-2014, 02:02

Well said brother. Time to take some Florida sunshine to the Finger Lakes.

Jaxom · #**171** 19-03-2014, 14:31

Quote:

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.

JonellGregor · #**172** 19-03-2014, 22:25

This is quite off topic from the other discussions here, but this seems fitting to put in the Orlando Regional Thread.

In the future, Wednesdays will be #WhyFIRSTWednesday on the Orlando Regional Facebook page. We will share different brief statements from students, mentors, and Alumni about why they are involved with FIRST each week.

Share your story with us at http://www.formpl.us/form/0B7STmXmeY6NjSkxpSU1DMHR3XzQ .

Time to make FIRST loud! Thanks y'all!

Tristan Lall · #**173** 20-03-2014, 02:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

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

I'd say this has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. To grant an automatic pass encourages subterfuge. To disregard the fact that an inspector passed it is unfair, particularly for the reasons you articulated.

Quote:

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.

When serving as an LRI, particularly as I gained more experience (and even before the introduction of the reinspection line on the checklist), I encouraged inspectors to document changes on the original form and initial the changes, but I can't say that I made it a priority to verify whether that was being done. For systematic reinspections for the elimination rounds, I did insist that a record be kept even if there were no changes, but recognize that not every reported change was adequately annotated.

When serving as a regular inspector, I definitely attempt to make those change annotations myself. I haven't made annotations when teams approached me with a reference question that didn't involve at least a partial inspection of a robot part.

Tristan Lall · #**174** 20-03-2014, 03:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I'll point out again what I think is a cogent change in the rules. In 2012, the Q&A specifically ruled against counterweight batteries. That year's battery rule had the clause "This is the only battery allowed on the Robot." Plus the same COTS computing exceptions. Which makes it pretty obvious that dead weight batteries aren't legal. That clause is missing in the 2013 and 2014 rules.

2013 had a single relevant Q&A: "Can we use more than one battery?" "No." Which is somewhat vague as to the use of said battery. As of Orlando, there were no relevant Q&As.

We're always reminded that this year's rules aren't last year's rules, and the omission of an obvious and clear prohibition against dead weight batteries really would make one wonder about the current feeling on the subject.

I find this logic convincing. There is (at present) no 2014 prohibition on multiple batteries not used for electrical power.

Besides, since there's no clear regulatory mandate, think of it from an equitable point of view: no harm, no foul, right? Who has reason to care if you use a (disconnected) battery or a rock as ballast?

Kevin Sevcik · #**175** 20-03-2014, 11:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I find this logic convincing. There is (at present) no 2014 prohibition on multiple batteries not used for electrical power.

Besides, since there's no clear regulatory mandate, think of it from an equitable point of view: no harm, no foul, right? Who has reason to care if you use a (disconnected) battery or a rock as ballast?

I'll note that for me, personally, batteries are a ballast of last resort, only slightly preferable to a sturdy bucket of nuts and bolts. If I have options that don't include a 12 lb portable welding power supply, I'd much rather go with those options.

So I'm not saying I think batteries as ballast are necessarily wise, just that the legality seem in question. Much like using an RS550 in a stall-likely application is legal but foolish.

sbrierty · #**176** 22-03-2014, 13:08

We at team 624 have refrained from commenting publicly on the events in Orlando to give FIRST a chance to work through and potentially address what transpired in the quarterfinal matches. The posts by mentors from 1902 and 233 were very detailed and informative. We’d like to add our account of what happened and voice some concerns over the process that lead to the disqualification of the #1 seeded alliance after two convincing victories on the field.

As the post from 1902 stated, our alliance felt we would be more competitive if they removed their shooter and instead relied on their extremely high quality drive train and experienced drivers to provide defense during the eliminations. We were aware of the decision to add ballast and after 1902 confirmed with a robot inspector that this was within the rules we even helped provide materials to secure the batteries and add the blockers to their machine. Two of the lead build mentors from 624 were present when four of the 1902 team members took their robot to the inspection station. They had to go in search of an inspector, as none were nearby at the time. The inspector had them place their robot on the scale, took note of the weight, and looked over the robot. He said they were good, and one of the 1902 mentors even confirmed asking if he was sure there wasn’t anything else that needed to be done, and he responded “No, you’re good to go”. At this point we were fully confident that their robot was fully inspected and in a legal configuration (given a robot inspector was asked about the batteries before they were installed, and they were on the robot for the re-inspection). It’s difficult for us to hear that our alliance didn’t do everything reasonable to ensure we were within the rules and ready to compete in the elimination matches. If at any point an inspector (or referee, judge, opposing alliance, etc..) had raised concerns about the batteries we could have very easily taken them off and used another heavy material, or nothing at all, and it would have had no impact on the outcome of the matches that were played.

The inspection process and lack of uniformity has been thoroughly discussed in this thread so I won’t pile on, but we would also like to discuss what happened following the quarterfinal matches. The above account of our actions probably took you well less than five minutes to read, however our team (and to our knowledge our alliance) was never given the opportunity to present that information before the issue had already been argued thoroughly (between the head ref and the #8 alliance, between the head ref and lead robot inspector, and finally between the head ref and FIRST headquarters). During that long delay and conversation we were never asked to provide our side of the story, never asked what we did to get re-inspected, never included at any point before they announced the decision. We believe the information that 1902 and we have presented was not a part of the conversation at any point before they handed down the red cards and sent us packing. We understand that there is nothing requiring the head referee to include our alliance in those discussions, however I don’t understand how a huge, regional altering (and possibly season altering for 233 and 1902 if they are unable to qualify for the Championship event) decision could be made without first gathering all of the facts. By the time our team was brought into the discussion the first thing we heard was “this decision has come down from FIRST headquarters and will not be disputed”. When asked which specific rule was broken that warranted the disqualification we were told that it wasn’t important.

Based on the conversations and posts from teams 179 and 1251, had they been presented with our side of the story as well as the potential consequences (Red cards and DQ) they did not understand what their challenge would lead to. In a similar controversial elimination match at the Utah regional the teams were given the opportunity to withdraw their challenges after the issues had been discussed. I believe (and they are free to correct me) if given the opportunity and knowing it would result in our disqualification, that the #8 alliance would have withdrawn their challenge. They would have understood that we were misled by a robot inspector and were not trying to gain an unfair advantage; and removing those batteries would not have changed the outcome of the matches.

Our last concern is the way the results were presented to the spectators (both in the audience and watching on the various webcasts). The emcee was given an explanation of the ruling and he then relayed that ruling to the crowd. The way they chose to announce this to the crowd was: “During the matches between alliance #1 and alliance #8 it was deemed that a robot had changed their configuration and had not gone back to re-inspect that configuration. Their configuration in both of those matches was deemed illegal, and it was egregious. So, thus, a team on the red alliance for those matches has been issued a red card for both of those matches”.

The implication to everybody listening was that the alliance cheated and was either ignorant of the rules or intentionally tried to get around them. Fortunately as more information has been made public by the teams involved there has been an outpouring of sympathy and understanding from the FIRST community, but as yet there has been no acknowledgment of mismanagement from FIRST or Orlando regional officials. There’s no way to go back and change the result but FIRST can learn from these mistakes and take steps to ensure other teams aren’t subjected to this kind of heartbreak.

It’s a shame those elimination matches cast a shadow over our regional experience because there were so many positives from that weekend. The refs have a more difficult job this year than in any I can remember and I believe they are doing the everything in their abilities to run the matches fairly and smoothly. There are absolutely no hard feelings towards the members of teams 79, 179, and 1251 (even 1251 for that bruising and very effective defense played in those two matches – I hope we don’t have to face that again in St. Louis). I think we all regret the way things turned out and the sympathy / apologies, though unnecessary, were much appreciated. It was amazing to be able to meet and interact with so many top tier teams who we have watched and respected for years. We learned a lot from the way you build your robots and how you interact with and run your teams. The volunteers were extremely friendly, welcoming, and helpful. Our alliance partners throughout the tournament were a joy to work with and we hope to see many of you at the Championship in a few weeks. If anybody is looking to see another part of the country next season we would love to have you at one of the very competitive Texas regionals. Come play with us in Houston at Lone Star next year!

Nirvash · #**177** 23-03-2014, 12:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbrierty

By the time our team was brought into the discussion the first thing we heard was “this decision has come down from FIRST headquarters and will not be disputed”. When asked which specific rule was broken that warranted the disqualification we were told that it wasn’t important.

It is always good to know that a team can be disqualified for no other reason then 'they said so'.

scca229 · #**178** 08-04-2014, 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by GearsOfFury

On this year's inspection checklist - which is used as the "official" tracking document at the regionals I've inspected at - there is a section for re-inspection sign-off:

http://www.usfirst.org//sites/defaul...list_Rev-B.pdf

(Reference the "Reinsp" and "Final Insp (initial)" areas). It appears on last year's form, as well:

http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default...nChecklist.pdf

I don't know if this section is used religiously, because I've never been an inspector on Saturday afternoon. To me, in general, the official re-inspection should be tracked here, particularly if it's not done by the LRI.

At the Arizona Regional, we used that exact 2014 form and the location in the upper right of the form to denote a passed Final Inspection for Eliminations along with an additional different initialed colored sticker on the white inspection sticker on the bot.

I also happen to notice on those forms, and the captain and mentor should as well since they had to sign the form (you read everything you sign, right?), that the following words appear under the Electrical section:

2013 form - "Battery - A single MK ES17-12 battery or a single EnerSys NP18-12 must be securely fastened to robot. <R34 & R35 >"

2014 form - "Battery - A single EnerSys NP18-12 battery or listed equivalent, terminals insulated, must be securely fastened to robot. <R31,
R32, R33>. Check all batteries for compliance."

Not sure where the ambiguity on legality is. The whys of what happened are irrelevant as the bot should never have been presented for Final Inspection with more than one battery on it, connected or not.

I guess I equate the DQ in the same frame of mind as to how the Arizona Regional Head Referee answered a question in the driver meeting regarding ball possession..."Don't make us have to determine whether it was or not." Even if the Final Inspection document was provided, it would have explicitly said that a single battery was allowed and the robot was presented on the field with more than one.

lcoreyl · #**179** 11-04-2014, 01:00

scca229--I have to say that your post reads to me as from an inspector that has gone through the rigors of a thankless stressful job, and is siding with a fellow soldier. Just my opinion.
I am responding as someone who has never met anyone from any team involved, while also feeling guilty for allowing my stress to cause me to be short with our inspector this last week. I think I'm coming from an objective place, therefore.

Quote: