G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester

[Joe Johnson]

I am surprised that FIRST had NOTHING to say about rule G10 in light of the fiasco (yes, I think we can call it a fiasco) that happened in Dallas Week 1.

Seriously, if ever a rule needed some clarification, it seems like this one does.

G10 DRIVE TEAMS may not cause significant or repeated delays to the start of a MATCH.
VIOLATION: The offending ROBOT will be DISABLED

Not to mention this jewel of a rule penumbra in the blue box: "DRIVE TEAMS are expected to stage their ROBOTS for a MATCH safely and swiftly. As a guideline, ROBOTS should be configurable in fewer than sixty (60) seconds."

What should teams plan on for Week 2 and beyond? Will the Dallas Disable become the norm? Should the crowd start a countdown chant for each robot?

Seriously though, I am really surprised that FIRST has not spoken up on this topic.

Dr. Joe J.

[Batterink]

They posted a blog about investigating particularly this situation further.

[pntbll1313]

As the Blog says, they are still gathering information, and "will have more to share once the facts are in."

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

I am surprised that FIRST had NOTHING to say about rule G10 in light of the fiasco (yes, I think we can call it a fiasco) that happened in Dallas Week 1.

Seriously, if ever a rule needed some clarification, it seems like this one does.

G10 DRIVE TEAMS may not cause significant or repeated delays to the start of a MATCH.
VIOLATION: The offending ROBOT will be DISABLED

Not to mention this jewel of a rule penumbra in the blue box: "DRIVE TEAMS are expected to stage their ROBOTS for a MATCH safely and swiftly. As a guideline, ROBOTS should be configurable in fewer than sixty (60) seconds."

What should teams plan on for Week 2 and beyond? Will the Dallas Disable become the norm? Should the crowd start a countdown chant for each robot?

Seriously though, I am really surprised that FIRST has not spoken up on this topic.

Dr. Joe J.

I'm not sure what there is to say about the rule, they clearly state a 60 second setup limit, the strictness of enforcement is up to the head ref.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

I agree - it's a little unclear what G10 really means.

If it's referring to simply taking too long to set up your robot (and I have a hunch that's what the GDC was going for), then that's to be expected - if one team is causing the whole event to run late, then perhaps they should be disabled for a match. However, if a team is, through its actions, causing the refs and other field personnel to hold matches to ensure the robot's legality (what happened in Dallas), then it gets fuzzier.

In some ways, it would be good for this rule to apply even then, as it would force teams to make robots that are easily proven to be safe and within the rules. However, in other ways, it would stifle creativity - many robots every year are right up against the legal limit, and if teams thought they could be disabled for an almost-illegal-but-not-quite robot, the amount of variety in robot designs would decrease significantly.

So yes - it would be nice to see a clarification on G10.

EDIT: a few people ninja'd me. I think the clarification is necessary as to who held the match up - the team, via their actions setting up the robot, or the field crew, checking that the robot was within the rules.

[Loose Screw]

Could you explain what happened exactly? It sounds like the intent of the GDC was to allow a wide variety of robots, but they didn't want teams to delay matches when assembling their robot. I know week one events are usually slow (the event I watched was 1 1/2 hours behind at points!), but I can see the same happening with teams. As the season goes on, they'll get better at assembling their robot quickly and safely.

[Joe Johnson]

Let me be clear about my surprise. IN GENERAL, I think it is bad for FIRST to have the mood of a head ref. determining who wins a tournament or not. And that is exactly what we have as far as I can see.

The rules should be clear enough to both the participants and those enforcing the rules that every regional anywhere on the planet is playing the same game.

That was not the case last weekend.

I would have thought that FIRST would have quickly responded to this situation.

Dr. Joe J.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by Loose Screw

Could you explain what happened exactly? It sounds like the intent of the GDC was to allow a wide variety of robots, but they didn't want teams to delay matches when assembling their robot. I know week one events are usually slow (the event I watched was 1 1/2 hours behind at points!), but I can see the same happening with teams. As the season goes on, they'll get better at assembling their robot quickly and safely.

Prior to finals match 3 at the Dallas Regional, 987 was disabled for being too tall.

EDIT: they were also disabled in the semis for supposedly taking too long to set up, thanks Abishek R.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

Let me be clear about my surprise. IN GENERAL, I think it is bad for FIRST to have the mood of a head ref. determining who wins a tournament or not. And that is exactly what we have as far as I can see.

The rules should be clear enough to both the participants and those enforcing the rules that every regional anywhere on the planet is playing the same game.

That was not the case last weekend.

I would have thought that FIRST would have quickly responded to this situation.

Dr. Joe J.

Did you play last year's game at all? The mood of the head ref definitely played a huge factor. Heck, whether assists were counted depended on where on the field it occurred with some refs not counting assists and others counting them.

I'm sure I could find examples of this going back many years. FIRST's rules are not, never have been, and never will be perfect.

[Jared]

It's important to note that the sixty second guideline (not rule) is in a blue box. The standard blue box disclaimer makes them somewhat useless. The referee can always tell you that a rule takes precedence and can ignore the blue box legally. The same goes for any q and a response that doesn't make it into a team update.

At the beginning of the manual, this disclaimer about blue boxes is posted inside of a blue box.

Warnings, cautions and notes appear in blue boxes. It is strongly recommended that you pay close attention to their contents as they’re intended to provide
insight into the reasoning behind a rule, helpful information on understanding or interpreting a rule, and/or possible “best practices” for use when implementing
systems affected by a rule.
While blue boxes are part of the manual, they do not carry the weight of the actual rule (if there is an inadvertent conflict between a rule and its blue box, the
rule supersedes the language in the blue box).

This weakens the power of the blue box significantly. In addition, the blue box has 60 seconds as a guideline.

A team may delay the start of the match, even if it takes them less than 60 sixty seconds to set up. If the match would have normally started 30 seconds after the robots were placed on the field (not likely), and you force them to wait sixty seconds, you have delayed the match. If you do this twice, it's a repeated delay.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen

Prior to finals match 3 at the Dallas Regional, 987 was disabled for being too tall.

No, they were disabled during the semifinals for supposedly taking too long to set up as well, I believe. I don't recall that rule ever being enforced which resulted in a disable or any warning being given about it prior to when it happened. It was pretty unexpected when it became an issue.

Also, when does that 60 seconds start? Right when the gates open? After we're done waiting for the yellow totes to be set back up by referees since teams may not change the position of the autonomous game pieces, so that we can line our robots up with them?

[ehochstein]

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...hes-resolution

Blog Date:
Wednesday, March 4, 2015 - 13:03
As I noted in an earlier blog, we have been gathering data from participants regarding the events that took place during the final matches at the Dallas Regional. Based on the information I have, I believe the teams were not treated in a way that meets FRC standards. At a minimum, it appears two teams were not given the opportunity to make the ‘quick remedy’ promised under G7 to get them in a compliant starting position before the final match. Beyond the rules themselves, I believe the teams were not kept well informed of the situation, with at least one team not knowing they had been disabled until the match started and their robot did not move. Also, I got the sense the teams were not being treated as respectfully as they deserved, at least on occasion. While some may characterize this situation as a problem with the decisions of a few volunteers, I do not. Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring all teams have a positive experience at FRC events falls to me, with, of course, the support of the rest of the FIRST staff.

Our volunteers have very difficult jobs, and my working assumption is that every volunteer has the best interests of the teams at heart. Every day I am thankful for their commitment and dedication to FIRST. FIRST would not exist or be what it is without them. However, volunteers do not train themselves, and FIRST has the responsibility to train and regularly reinforce the need to make the team experience the priority, balanced, of course, with proper consideration for the rules to ensure fairness. We also need to acknowledge that our many different volunteer roles require different skill sets, and not every volunteer is suited for every role. We need to make sure we have a good fit between our volunteers and the roles we need filled.

Immediately, we are contacting our key volunteers to reinforce the idea that the team experience should take priority at events. Longer term, working with the FIRST Volunteer Resources Department, we will be reviewing our key volunteer training process for 2016 to ensure it properly emphasizes the team experience. Other specific actions may also be taken.

The teams involved in the final match at Dallas were 624, 118, 2613, 987, 148, and 3802. Five of these six teams have already earned a slot at the FIRST Championship, with the lone exception being 3802. As a way to attempt to partially make up for the frustrations of the final match, I am offering 3802 a Wild Card slot at Championship. This should not be interpreted to mean that I believe that, had all robots been enabled, the 987/148/3802 Alliance would have won that final match. I would not attempt to predict that. The 624/118/2613 Alliance are the Winners of the Dallas Regional, and this offer is not intended to minimize that very significant accomplishment.

I apologize to the teams involved in the finals, the rest of the attendees in Dallas, and the FIRST community for this. We are working to make it right, and minimize the chance of it happening again.

Frank

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by themccannman

I'm not sure what there is to say about the rule, they clearly state a 60 second setup limit, the strictness of enforcement is up to the head ref.

The 60 second number is a blue box guideline, not any actual definition. As a guideline, refs would be free to be lenient during Quals and suddenly decide there's a time crunch and start being more strict during Elims. Dr. Joe is quite right that this rule is extremely vague and subjective as currently implemented and enforced. Even if we stipulate that 60 seconds is the actual limit, there's open questions:

1. When does the time start?
2. When does the time end?
3. How does it affect G10 if you declare order of robot placement matters and teams have to alternate robot placement?
4. How does it affect G10 if there are delays due to previous teams or field reset?

If refs are going to start disabling teams for G10 with little or no warning, then there needs to be a MUCH better definition of what constitutes delaying a match. As it is, it appears refs could punitively disable your robot if you decide robot placement order matters for ALL of your matches and all your matches end up positioning robots Red-Blue-Red-Blue-Red-Blue and taking 4-5 minutes to start because of it.

[Gregor]

Personally I'm looking forward to pushing past my alliance partners to be first on the field so they can be disabled not me!

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

No, they were disabled during the semifinals for supposedly taking too long to set up as well, I believe. I don't recall that rule ever being enforced which resulted in a disable or any warning being given about it prior to when it happened. It was pretty unexpected when it became an issue.

My bad. The finals disable has just been a more visible one than the semis.

Also, when does that 60 seconds start? Right when the gates open? After we're done waiting for the yellow totes to be set back up by referees since teams may not change the position of the autonomous game pieces, so that we can line our robots up with them?

I believe that it starts the moment your robot's wheels touch the carpet.