[FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

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.

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.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

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.

I certainly hope that an LRI wouldn't make a mistake that would be noticeable to the refs or other teams on the field... we're pretty good at catching the big obvious things

The question comes in with inspectors, particularly rookie inspectors. I know at my regional in Duluth over half my inspectors were rookies, and I know that a lot of stuff was missed initially and we worked the entire weekend to catch it and get it fixed.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

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.

[Jon Stratis]

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.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

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.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

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:

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.

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.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

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 I saw multiple batteries on a robot, I too would think the robot hadn't been reinspected.

The appropriate resolution probably will have to come down to clearly defining what "inspected" means, and that sounds like what the documentation mentioned in the blog is supposed to do. I don't want to aim negative thoughts toward a volunteer without knowing more, but I need to maintain a distinction between "an inspector said we were good" and "our robot passed a reinspection after we added ballast."

[Mark Sheridan]

Originally Posted by Cory

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.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

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.

I like your system a lot. The thing I am proposing be changed about it is to make the "re-inspection" process an active rather than passive thing. Instead of inspectors walking around to see anything that looks different, they would ask each and every team, every time, "what did you change?" and then make judgement based on their answer + the robot appearance. Right now the rules as written mean that every single change to the robot (e.g. re-treading a wheel) could result in disqualification if not reinspected. Currently teams get by on common-sense interpretation of this rule, basic leniency, etc., but this is a huge opportunity for confusion and seemingly arbitrary disqualification. Rather than try and write a perfect rule set that allows some changes but not others, just having inspection checks become a normal pre-match thing would prevent this problem, or any other problem like this, from happening again. By seeing a team on the field you'll know an inspector has recently talked to the team.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Cory

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).

When I was LRI at Waterloo a few years ago, we informally worked out a similar procedure. If an inspector saw an issue immediately before or during the match, but it was relatively minor in nature, the team would be warned after the match and instructed to correct it. If it was major, and found immediately before the match, the inspector would address it then and there. If major and during or immediately after the match (before scores are posted), it would be reported to a referee, who would apply the gameplay rules, and an inspector would also address it afterward. If found after the fact, the rules would be applied at the point of discovery, and the head referee, FTA and/or regional director would be advised depending on whether the violation was believed to have existed beforehand, and whether the violation was believed deliberate—but no retroactive enforcement of the robot rules would take place.

Our interpretation was that any examination of a robot by an inspector could constitute an inspection, if the inspector elects to treat it as such.¹ The process above was intended to ensure a balance between the need for teams to have legal robots, and the need for teams to play. Granted, the rules were slightly different in those years, but I think the core rationale is still consistent with the current version of those rules.

(I would be interested to learn whether FIRST supports that open-ended definition of an inspection, or whether they intend to define the types and scopes of various kinds of inspections more rigourously in the future. Certainly we would benefit from better definitions of the process of inspection, but I don't think it's actually necessary to define separate powers for every kind of inspection—that's too complex, and could cause perverse outcomes.)

Originally Posted by Chris is me

...they would ask each and every team, every time, "what did you change?" and then make judgement based on their answer + the robot appearance.

This is the most important aspect of any re-inspection before the elimination rounds. The weighing and observations are essentially to verify the teams' answers to these inquiries, and aren't sufficient without getting an answer to that question.

¹ Since that is a subjective standard, it was also important to make clear to teams that an inspector had observed the violation, and was mandating compliance. Note that we didn't address the question of an inspector overlooking a defect by treating that observation as not having been an inspection; some guidelines on that front would be welcome.

[Steve W]

As an LRI I have found many teams to make changes without being reinspected. When this has happened in the past I have approached the team and identified the issue. I also make sure that the head Ref knows what was said and what was expected. If the team did not get reinspected at which time I notified the Head Ref they could be penalized.

This year was the first time that I was involved with teams being DQed. They were both during qualification rounds. The first one was with a team damaging the carpet. I spent time with them and when a solution was in place I left them and told about 8 students in the pit that they had to be re-inspected before going out to play again. Two other Inspectors also talked to them about re-inspection. I happened to go out to the field when they were playing. I asked all of my inspectors if they had re-inspected them and the answer was no. I informed the Head Ref before the scores were announced. We both went and questioned the team and they admitted to not being re-inspected. Red Card and DQ followed. The second was a rookie team that had added a blocker to their robot. Again I noticed during the match. I would have waited till after the match as they were rookies but the part added to the robot did affect the match. Same process with Inspectors and Head Ref. Same result, Red Card and DQ.

I felt really bad for the alliance partners and 1 team was involved with both DQ's. I read and re-read the rules and next morning (Saturday) I spoke with the FTA and Head Ref. I requested a ruling from HQ on the DQ's to the 4 teams not in violation of the rules. I pleaded my case to the FTA who took it to HQ. Final ruling, only the robots that had made the modifications got a Red Card and the other robots got their points back.

I guess the point is that FIRST is fair. We as LRI's and Inspectors do our best to keep all teams competing on a even plain. I know as an LRI I tell all of my inspectors that if in any doubt ask me. If I find that an Inspector makes a mistake I try and show it to them and use it as a learning experience. I am even willing to put it here in writing that "I HAVE MADE MISTAKES". For those that know me, don't say a word.

I will also say that all of the events I have been involved with The LRI, Head Ref and FTA work together to make each event be the best that it can be.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I felt really bad for the alliance partners and 1 team was involved with both DQ's. I read and re-read the rules and next morning (Saturday) I spoke with the FTA and Head Ref. I requested a ruling from HQ on the DQ's to the 4 teams not in violation of the rules. I pleaded my case to the FTA who took it to HQ. Final ruling, only the robots that had made the modifications got a Red Card and the other robots got their points back.

Was FIRST's ruling that T6 applied only to initial inspections leading to the reciept of a valid inspection sticker, and not subsequent ones? (That makes sense from an equitable point of view, because there really isn't any good way for partners to be sure of the inspection status of another robot other than to look for a sticker indicating that it had, at one point, passed.)

And if so, did they publish a version of that ruling in the Q&A or in an update?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Guys I can't believe you are even discussing this. A repair is a repair and except for items that Jon pointed out that could potentially damage the carpet, a repair of a damaged mechanism with an identical mechanism is a repair it is not a modification. If the arm is an upgrade part, then the replacement is a modification and needs to be reinspected. Re-inspections and reweighs are still free.

We will be using a form similar to that posted earlier in this thread. The team does not fill out or handle the paperwork. Re-inspections need to be carried out in the pit during qualifying. Following lunch on Saturday, we will move the paperwork and re-inspections out to the dome and carry the paperwork with us. We will have all documentation available during eliminations.

To Be Sure...
If you make a change, a modification, remove anything, even think about taking something off and putting something else on, come and ask us. We are really nice guys and we want you to play and win.

[Nathan Pell]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Here's the team's description of what happened: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=124

In short... They took off part of their robot and replaced it with 2 FRC batteries to act as ballast. They asked an inspector before they made the modification, and after it was done got reweighed and the inspector said it was all good.

They then competed like that in two matches, the opposing alliance challenged it based on their understanding from the rules that having multiple batteries on the robot was illegal, and those involved in the decision (the head ref, FTA, and LRI) were not aware of and had no way to show that the team had passed reinspection - from their point of view, the team competed with an illegal robot, and as a result the alliance was disqualified from the two matches they won, and lost their chance to compete in the semifinals.

Read through the thread linked for more information, there are a few posts from the teams involved on both sides,with both alliances unhappy with the eventual outcome.

Thank you for posting this. I was afraid people were loosing sight of the issue that hurt deep. It wasn't that a team didn't get reinspected and tried to skirt the rules. It was they believed they did get approval and competed in faith they were in a legal configuration. It was only after the challenge, then it was officially decreed the team was not re-inspected. That is the issue - an inspector says your good, but then later you aren't. That is the issue - in my opinion. Additionally, when the phone call was made to Frank not one person from the affected alliance was questioned or interviewed about the issue.

I hope this never happens again to another team - it really hurts.

PS:
The report from the Florida today was there during the entire process and it was her own opinion to write the article the way she did. No one called up the paper to whine about anything.

These are my views only, and not of the Pink Team, Exploding Bacon or Cryptonite (sp)

[Nathan Pell]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

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.

Hello Frank - you hit the nail on the head. NOTHING was discussed with our alliance before the decision was made. Our robot was on the field and the drivers were waiting in the driving station. We only found out when the decision was made and were told 'this is final - no discussing'.