|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Here's a dumb idea. What if there was one or two inspectors in queueing, asking teams what repairs or modifications they did? It would take for the most part 15 seconds per team. No big change would go unnoticed. No confusion over whether or not a team was reviewed by an inspector. No worrying about if you have to fill out paperwork for a tread change - just tell the queueing inspector and if you need to do something (paperwork, weight) they'll let you know.
Inspectors already hang around during the day anyway. With 10 inspectors for an event each would only need to do 2 hours a day tops. Maybe this is a lot to ask, but it's better than the current system, where a team can apparently go from being told that they don't have to do anything else and they're "good to go" to being disqualified. |
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Yes, that's the system I have. 2-3 inspectors at the inspection desk for when a team needs to ask for help/reinspection, 2-3 inspectors in the queue to check on teams as they come through, and the rest watching the field/field exit.
When a team breaks on the field or has other issues (disabled due to frame perimeter or bumpers, cRio or radio reboot, etc), and inspector follows them back to the pit to work with them - this ensures that the repair/fix is not only legal, but it gets inspected immediately. That inspector, since he is already in the pits, then goes to the inspection desk and relieves one of the inspectors there. This prevents an inspector from getting bored sitting at the desk all day (most of the inspectors I work with are pretty active and want to either be working with a team or watching a match, not twiddling their thumbs at the desk). That inspector then goes and relieves one of the guys in the queueing line. That way you don't have the same inspector looking at the robots the whole day - if an inspector misses something once, they're likely to miss it a second time. Changing out the inspectors helps to make sure stuff gets caught. From there, the inspector goes back to the field/field exit and starts the cycle all over again. It's the best way I can come up with of catching issues, helping teams avoid issues while on the field, ensuring we pro-actively show up to inspect for teams who are likely to be doing something that needs an inspection, and being available for teams who ask for it. But towards the point of Frank's blog post (and Allen's last post)... even with my method there's room for confusion and misunderstandings. A team could make it through all of that and still compete with something I would find blatantly illegal, and it would be difficult to track it back to the inspector that passed it, and even more difficult to ensure the inspector remembers passing it. Additional documentation can certainly help avoid situations like what happened in Orlando, so long as we don't go overboard and make that documentation a pain that no one wants to deal with. Doing it with the computerized system that was tested in MAR sounds like it could work out very nicely. |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
Lets say you, as the LRI, pass a team. Later, they are found to be have been illegal (even though you passed them as such). Does this warrant a red card? |
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
I don't think it can. Everyone is imperfect, including in this case the inspector.
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
T7 covers inspected robots not in compliance with the robot rules which does not have a penalty So for instance a robot with three batteries successfully passes inspection in good faith shouldn't get a red card. When the situation is discovered, they would need to correct the issue & get reinspected before allowed to continue. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
Quote:
It also says: Quote:
Further, the FTA is the official representative of FIRST and the GDC at an event. Those three people, essentially, have all the power in determining how the event goes, and the boundaries between them aren't always clear. That's why it's important that those three people get along and have an understanding ![]() So on to the question... If I personally pass someone in the queueing line and there's something I missed, then it's a bad situation all around. Given the scenario we're dealing with, lets assume that the issue is brought to the Head Ref's attention (either a ref notices something that doesn't look right or a team on the other alliance challenges it). At that point, the Head Ref is well within his rights to take appropriate action - if it's before the match, disabling a robot, if it's after DQing the team (based on his understanding of the Game rules as they pertain to the field). Obviously, this is NOT the preferred outcome! In my experience, if issues are noticed on the field early in an event, the head ref warns the team and gets a note to me to talk with them. That's why my inspectors are standing at the exit - they're within hailing distance of the refs, and (especially this year) the refs can easily task them with getting something fixed on a robot. The later we get in an event, the more likely I am to be at the field. Issues have been worked out in the pits, my inspectors know their jobs and are doing them, and I'm free to keep an eye on things around the field. It also makes it very easy for the Head Ref to find me to consult about an inspection question! If the question is directly related to something I said was OK, then I am automatically fighting for the team. At that point, I feel it's not the team's fault and the team shouldn't suffer in their current match because of my mistake - although that's the only match they get a pass in, they have to fix it for all future matches! Depending on the issue, sometimes the head ref agrees, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes it becomes a discussion with myself, the Head Ref, and the FTA to find the most appropriate solution. Regardless, if I know (which is really the key point when it comes to the issue in Orlando) the fault was mine or one of my inspectors, I argue on behalf of the affected team, and try to make sure that the match in question isn't counted against them. We're all there to make it a great event for every team. That means we have to play by the rules, and treat every team fairly. It can be very difficult to do that when you have to make a decision that will benefit one team while harming another, as almost any field decision does. None of these decisions are made lightly, and each one is handled on a case-by-case basis as the particulars are often important. |
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Your response really points out the weakness (and danger) of the rules in this situation.
Any reasonable person from outside would agree, no. A team can't be red-carded because the LRI made a mistake. The rules need to remove the red card penalty, OR streamline the process and make it more fair/consistent to teams. Certainly either way the LRI shouldn't be able to accidentally entrap teams into losing. Quote:
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
|
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
And keep in mind that anything one of the key volunteers (including me) says on a public board like this towards a question like the one posed is likely to be rather vague... the last thing I want to be doing is throwing another LRI or Head Ref under the bus by disagreeing with them when I wasn't present and can't possibly have full information as to the situation. That's one big reason why I'm hesitant to give a straight yes/no answer, and instead prefer to explain the process we go through and which rules come into play.
|
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
What I hope comes out of this is First puts out re-inspection process that is workable. Franks' blog says they are working on this. Last edited by FrankJ : 17-04-2014 at 16:07. |
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
As written, the implication of T6 is to keep teams that have never been inspected from coming onto the field: Quote:
Thus I think it is a stretch to make T6 all encompassing and suddenly say that it applies to any instance in which a robot may be non-compliant with the rules. There is zero precedent before the last two years to say this is the case. I have seen numerous cases of teams that were non-compliant with the rules during a qualification match that were told to remedy the situation before going out again, but never have I seen a team that got inspected and was temporarily non-compliant be DQ'ed after the fact (besides 973 last year, but that could be considered an isolated event and not a change in policy). The precedent was only set this year when HQ decided specifically that this was the appropriate action to take (or backed up the Head Ref/LRI's decision). Perhaps FIRST/the GDC's standpoint is that any non-compliant robot that competes after being inspected initially should be DQ'ed immediately after said match, or whenever it is brought to the attention of the LRI. If it is, they should explicitly say so, as well as who the burden of proof is placed on when it comes to getting inspected. It is completely unreasonable to place that burden on a team acting in good faith that has approved any changes with an inspector. If the requirement is for the LRI to pass changes, then that should be explicitly stated. At SVR and Waterloo we have requested that the LRI inspect changes that we make to our partners, for fear of getting burned by exactly what happened to 233 (and previously 973). At times we have felt like their time is being wasted with trivial changes, but it is the only way for us to ensure there is no blowback later. Last edited by Cory : 17-04-2014 at 16:44. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
We could be like Golf where filling out your score card wrong can get you into trouble but that would be ridiculous. T6 needs to be cleared up. If a robot is suspect to be gaining an advantage by violating a rule, reinspect the robot to find evidence. We can't be DQ'ing robots with no evidence. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|