Go to Post I'm a bit wary about playing on the new fields, however, because of the Carson/Carver/Hopper/Tesla Curse. I hear no alliance from those divisions has ever won championships. - [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 12:49
magnets's Avatar
magnets magnets is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 748
magnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
Magnets -
Look at it from the perspective of the Robot Rules - if whatever is being done possibly impacts a Robot Rule (from an inspectors perspective), then you need a reinspection. This includes removing item's/material (we need to make sure the removal doesn't create/expose a sharp edge, leave an exposed wire touching the frame, etc), adding items or material (similar concerns as removal, including other concerns like the starting configuration), or performing adjustments to existing items on the robot that have the potential to create an issue (starting configuration, height, safety).

So generally speaking, tightening a bolt that has worked its way loose isn't going to be a problem, so long as tightening it does not alter the configuration the robot was inspected in (for example, I can envision a robot design where a bolt can be adjusted to move a piece in or out to alter the configuration, which may expose sharp edges or affect the starting configuration... that would need a reinspection).

It is impossible to create a list of what actions do/do not require a reinspection. We trust teams to act in good faith and to generally not make changes at an event that would cause an issue. However, stuff happens, and that's why I always try to have inspectors in high-profile places like queueing and watching the field to help ensure we catch everything as it happens.
I agree with you, that the reinspection process can (and should) be sort of a subjective thing, but with FIRST's recent call it seems like they like following the rules to the letter. Teams have common sense, and should reinspect if the think their modification could possible be deemed unsafe or illegal. If they're just tightening a bolt or replacing a bearing, then probably not, as long as it's not a safety issue.
Reply With Quote
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 12:59
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is online now
no bag, vex only, final destination
AKA: Pinecone
FRC #0228 (GUS Robotics); FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 7,718
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Chris is me
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.
__________________
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-?)
...2016 Waterbury SFs (with 3314, 3719), RIDE #2 Seed / Winners (with 1058, 6153), Carver QFs (with 503, 359, 4607)
Mentor / Consultant Person: 2170 (2017-?)
---
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015)
...2015 TVR Motorola Quality, FLR GM Industrial Design
...2014 FLR Motorola Quality / SFs (with 341, 4930)
...2013 BAE Motorola Quality, WPI Regional #1 Seed / Delphi Excellence in Engineering / Finalists (with 20, 3182)
...2012 BAE Imagery / Finalists (with 1519, 885), CT Xerox Creativity / SFs (with 2168, 118)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 Minnesota 10,000 Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
2791 Build Season Photo Gallery - Look here for mechanism photos My Robotics Blog (Updated April 11 2014)
Reply With Quote
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 13:07
AllenGregoryIV's Avatar
AllenGregoryIV AllenGregoryIV is offline
Engineering Coach
AKA: Allen "JAG" Gregory
FRC #3847 (Spectrum)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,557
AllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to AllenGregoryIV
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
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.
I think this is the system that Jon has in place which I think is a good idea. However this and all inspections really assume, perfect inspectors. I can't count the number of times teams go through multiple events with things that seem blatantly illegal to me when I inspect them later in the season. I think this will catch more issues but I think we need to make it a priority that teams be allowed to play in matches for items that don't give them advantage. Holding teams out of a match for small issues that aren't fully with in the rules, that are caught in queue, doesn't benefit anyone.
__________________

Team 647 | Cyber Wolf Corps | Alumni | 2003-2006 | Shoemaker HS
Team 2587 | DiscoBots | Mentor | 2008-2011 | Rice University / Houston Food Bank
Team 3847 | Spectrum | Coach | 2012-20... | St Agnes Academy
LRI | Alamo Regional | 2014-20...
"Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 14:14
Jon Stratis's Avatar
Jon Stratis Jon Stratis is online now
Electrical/Programming Mentor
FRC #2177 (The Robettes)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,791
Jon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________
2007 - Present: Mentor, 2177 The Robettes
LRI: North Star 2012-2016; Lake Superior 2013-2014; MN State Tournament 2013-2014, 2016; Galileo 2016; Iowa 2017
2015: North Star Regional Volunteer of the Year
2016: Lake Superior WFFA
Reply With Quote
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 14:16
AdamHeard's Avatar
AdamHeard AdamHeard is offline
Lead Mentor
FRC #0973 (Greybots)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Atascadero
Posts: 5,507
AdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to AdamHeard
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
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.
Hypothetical.

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?
Reply With Quote
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 14:24
AllenGregoryIV's Avatar
AllenGregoryIV AllenGregoryIV is offline
Engineering Coach
AKA: Allen "JAG" Gregory
FRC #3847 (Spectrum)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,557
AllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to AllenGregoryIV
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard View Post
Hypothetical.

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?
I don't think it can. Everyone is imperfect, including in this case the inspector.
__________________

Team 647 | Cyber Wolf Corps | Alumni | 2003-2006 | Shoemaker HS
Team 2587 | DiscoBots | Mentor | 2008-2011 | Rice University / Houston Food Bank
Team 3847 | Spectrum | Coach | 2012-20... | St Agnes Academy
LRI | Alamo Regional | 2014-20...
"Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 14:37
FrankJ's Avatar
FrankJ FrankJ is offline
Robot Mentor
FRC #2974 (WALT)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Marietta GA
Posts: 1,932
FrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard View Post
Hypothetical.

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?
The grounds for a Red card is T6 which is an uninspected robot.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 14:46
Jon Stratis's Avatar
Jon Stratis Jon Stratis is online now
Electrical/Programming Mentor
FRC #2177 (The Robettes)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,791
Jon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard View Post
Hypothetical.

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?
It's a difficult situation, to be sure. The rulebook says:

Quote:
At each event, the Lead ROBOT Inspector (LRI) has final authority on the legality of any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT.
(section 5.5.2 of the Tournament Rules)

It also says:
Quote:
The Head Referee has the ultimate authority in the ARENA during the event
(Section 5.5.3 of the Tournament Rules)

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.
__________________
2007 - Present: Mentor, 2177 The Robettes
LRI: North Star 2012-2016; Lake Superior 2013-2014; MN State Tournament 2013-2014, 2016; Galileo 2016; Iowa 2017
2015: North Star Regional Volunteer of the Year
2016: Lake Superior WFFA
Reply With Quote
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 14:58
AdamHeard's Avatar
AdamHeard AdamHeard is offline
Lead Mentor
FRC #0973 (Greybots)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Atascadero
Posts: 5,507
AdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to AdamHeard
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:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
It's a difficult situation, to be sure. The rulebook says:


(section 5.5.2 of the Tournament Rules)

It also says:

(Section 5.5.3 of the Tournament Rules)

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 15:34
FrankJ's Avatar
FrankJ FrankJ is offline
Robot Mentor
FRC #2974 (WALT)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Marietta GA
Posts: 1,932
FrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard View Post
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.
The rules already read like that. The red card is for participating in a match with an uninspected or a robot that has been modified so it is no longer in compliance with the rules & not reinspected should get red carded.

Quote:
5.5.2.2 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.
T7 Covers inspected robots that become non-complaint. Bumpers falling off gets you disabled, not red carded.
Reply With Quote
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 15:48
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is online now
no bag, vex only, final destination
AKA: Pinecone
FRC #0228 (GUS Robotics); FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 7,718
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Chris is me
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankJ View Post
The rules already read like that. The red card is for participating in a match with an uninspected or a robot that has been modified so it is no longer in compliance with the rules & not reinspected should get red carded.


T7 Covers inspected robots that become non-complaint. Bumpers falling off gets you disabled, not red carded.
But that's the thing, you can get a red card even if you've been inspected. It's happened multiple times, both in Orlando and in CVR last year. The rules don't read like that to the people making these decisions.
__________________
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-?)
...2016 Waterbury SFs (with 3314, 3719), RIDE #2 Seed / Winners (with 1058, 6153), Carver QFs (with 503, 359, 4607)
Mentor / Consultant Person: 2170 (2017-?)
---
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015)
...2015 TVR Motorola Quality, FLR GM Industrial Design
...2014 FLR Motorola Quality / SFs (with 341, 4930)
...2013 BAE Motorola Quality, WPI Regional #1 Seed / Delphi Excellence in Engineering / Finalists (with 20, 3182)
...2012 BAE Imagery / Finalists (with 1519, 885), CT Xerox Creativity / SFs (with 2168, 118)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 Minnesota 10,000 Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
2791 Build Season Photo Gallery - Look here for mechanism photos My Robotics Blog (Updated April 11 2014)
Reply With Quote
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 15:54
Jon Stratis's Avatar
Jon Stratis Jon Stratis is online now
Electrical/Programming Mentor
FRC #2177 (The Robettes)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,791
Jon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________
2007 - Present: Mentor, 2177 The Robettes
LRI: North Star 2012-2016; Lake Superior 2013-2014; MN State Tournament 2013-2014, 2016; Galileo 2016; Iowa 2017
2015: North Star Regional Volunteer of the Year
2016: Lake Superior WFFA
Reply With Quote
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 16:04
FrankJ's Avatar
FrankJ FrankJ is offline
Robot Mentor
FRC #2974 (WALT)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Marietta GA
Posts: 1,932
FrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
But that's the thing, you can get a red card even if you've been inspected. It's happened multiple times, both in Orlando and in CVR last year. The rules don't read like that to the people making these decisions.
The issue at Orlando (at least how Franks blogs reads) is that the Head Referee thought the robot had not been reinspected after the modification. If that was the case then you get a red card. T6 black & white. What is not clear to me is how much & what they discussed with the DQed alliance before making that decision. I was not there & likewise please do not take my comments as judgmental.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 16:31
Cory's Avatar
Cory Cory is offline
Registered User
AKA: Cory McBride
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 6,812
Cory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Cory
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankJ View Post
The issue at Orlando (at least how Franks blogs reads) is that the Head Referee thought the robot had not been reinspected after the modification. If that was the case then you get a red card. T6 black & white. What is not clear to me is how much & what they discussed with the DQed alliance before making that decision. I was not there & likewise please do not take my comments as judgmental.

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.
As I stated earlier in this thread, I disagree with this assessment.

As written, the implication of T6 is to keep teams that have never been inspected from coming onto the field:

Quote:
Originally Posted by T6
A Team is only permitted to participate in a Qualification or Elimination MATCH and receive Qualification Points if their ROBOT has passed Inspection. If it is discovered after the start of the MATCH that a ROBOT did not pass Inspection and the Team participated in the MATCH, the entire ALLIANCE receives a RED CARD for that MATCH.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Box
Please take note of this rule. It is important that FRC Teams ensure their ALLIANCE partners have passed Inspection. Allowing a partner that has not passed Inspection to play puts the ALLIANCE at risk of DISQUALIFICATION. Teams should check with their ALLIANCE partners early, and help them pass Inspection before competing.

Sending TEAM members to the ARENA without the ROBOT is considered participating in a MATCH.
Specifically note the blue box where it says to check with your partners early to make sure they have passed inspection.

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.
__________________
2001-2004: Team 100
2006-Present: Team 254

Last edited by Cory : 17-04-2014 at 16:44.
Reply With Quote
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 16:51
Mark Sheridan's Avatar
Mark Sheridan Mark Sheridan is offline
Head Mentor
FRC #3476 (Code Orange)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 560
Mark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond reputeMark Sheridan has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory View Post
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.
I agree with Cory. I thought its fair to assume robots are legal until evidence is shown that they are not. Innocent until proven guilty. In autoracing, a car would not be DQ's because they did not alert inspectors that they might be in violation to the rules. The car would be reinspected to determine if the car has a violation. Even violations carry different penalties. Bent frames carry no penalties but a engine displacement violation carries a huge suspension.

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.
__________________
Team 3476| Mentor| 2014 - Current
Team 3309| Mentor| 2011 - 2016
Team 766 | Mentor| 2006 - 2011 | Alumnus | 2002-2005
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:58.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi