G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Things like setup time varying based on whats going on elsewhere on the field?

That may affect when you get on the field, but, once you are at your placement location, and the location is clear, your 60 seconds starts, regardless of what is happening on the rest of the field.

What constitutes a problem team?

Any team that takes more than 60 seconds to setup. However, if a team routinely takes 65 seconds, I probably won't notice them. But, if I do notice them, you can bet that they are taking more than 60 seconds.

A one time offender? Two times?

Yes, they get warnings, and a lot of slack during early qualification matches.

Every single time?

After a few matches of being warned, that is when I will be a PIA to them. They will also know that I am telling the Head Ref about them.

Can a team be moved off the 'problem' team list if they make adjustments?

If a team is complying with the 60 second guideline, they have comfort in knowing that they will not be disabled because of the rule. Just because you may be in reasonable compliance doesn't mean that you have earned back an extended grace period.

It's simply too vague right now and is leaving a wide array of interpretations that have already reared their head in a bad way at an event resulting in corrective action from HQ.

I don't know the specifics about Dallas. If a team has been sufficiently warned, then the disabled should not be a surprise to them. If they had not been warned, then I think that is a problem. In practice matches, we were calling a lot of fouls. That is like a warning to the teams. By the time we got to eliminations, no fouls were being called. We didn't get more lax at calling fouls. The Teams were getting better at not committing them.

I think the 60 second guideline is: you know it when you see it. Obviously there will be extenuating circumstances, and a team should get more time. But, 99% of the time, a team knows when their 60 seconds starts - they are at their location, and able to place their robot. IMHO: All the other what-if's are red herrings. In general, the Ref's can see the situation, and adjust accordingly. Now, if teams are fighting over who goes where, that is an Alliance Problem, not a Ref/Field problem.

[jee7s]

I'm going to echo a few points made by others in this thread. And, I'm not meaning to pile on to Rich, but these types of exceptions and bending are exactly what lead to the frustration we as team mentors fear, based on observations so far this year.

Originally Posted by rich2202

If a team persisted being a problem (i kept notes of which teams I told to speed it up), I would be a PIA to them. Standing next to them when the robot arrives on the field, and letting them know when their 60 seconds starts.

So, were you just being a PIA, or were you alerting the inspectors or others at the event to help the team find ways to get under the 60 second mark? I'd really hope it was more than just lording over them and watching the countdown. Also, did teams that were under the 60 second number know they were on time? Or were they left guessing about any "bonus time" they got?

By the time a team is disabled, they would have known they have earned it, and it would not have been a surprise. However, at one match they could receive bonus time because other teams were still setting up. It would appear capricious if the next match they don't get as much bonus time because all the other teams have left the field.

See, this concept of "bonus time" is pretty troubling. I can see it leading to situations where teams are setting up in more than 60 seconds but not being disabled due to this concept, only to be disabled in a later match when setting up in the same amount of time.

No one wants a hard 60 second rule. Variances after 60 seconds is what may lead to what appears to be vastly different enforcement, even within the same ref crew. If someone else is delaying the match, I'm not going to penalize you, just because I can. That should not be taken as a license to take the same amount of time in the future.

Frankly, from all of the exceptions and bending of the rules I've heard, I could be convinced to have a 60 second clock to set up. Something like Field Reset says the field is ready, start the clock, and all teams need to be off the field in 60 seconds. Perhaps a bit of a pressure cooker, but at least we're all clear on the time.

If your team is delaying the match, and if you have been warned, then the disabled is appropriate, and not a surprise. The rigidity provides a standard framework for warning a team when they have reached the end of the reasonable period. The flexibilty is how much longer they get after that before the penalty is applied.

Except, from what I've been seeing in this thread and in the week 1 webcasts, there's the opposite of rigidity and standard -- it's all flexible and dependent on the interpretation of the situation. The flexibility you mention negates any expectations of standards.

While G10 is vague, the solution isn't to make your own rules around G10. The solution is to tell GDC that we need a better G10. Whether you're a Ref, Head Ref, FTA, team member, or spectator, it's better for all of us to have a better rule than to attempt to make up for the vagueness with "house rules" that change the competition depending on where you are competing.

[Bongle]

Hey Rich

Just want to chime into say you'd be welcome reffing any regional I'm at. No, the 60-seconds wasn't a hard-and-fast rule in the book, but your warn-then-penalize approach seems fair if implemented as you've said in the thread.

If the team knows when the clock starts, gets 60 seconds, knows when it is about to expire, and has gotten several warnings from past matches, it seems fair that they should start getting penalties.

While G10 is vague, the solution isn't to make your own rules around G10. The solution is to tell GDC that we need a better G10. Whether you're a Ref, Head Ref, FTA, team member, or spectator, it's better for all of us to have a better rule than to attempt to make up for the vagueness with "house rules" that change the competition depending on where you are competing.

As long as you enforce it consistently on every team throughout a regional, inter-regional differences shouldn't matter. If a team A is competing at regional X with a tough ref that doesn't give a hair over 60 seconds, it shouldn't matter that the team B at regional Y are having it easier. If team A and team B later compete at regional Z, it will still be under a level playing field run by the regional Z's ref.

I'd be fine with the rule being modified to something like:
"Teams must be given at least 60 seconds to set up. It is up to the head ref's discretion whether to hand out [penalties of some flavour] 60 seconds after the announced start of a 'setup period'. The start of the 'setup period' must be after all robots competing in the match have entered the field".
Edit: I have thought of a loophole, but this kind of rule design might be a fun separate topic itself.

If you don't want a penalty with that rule, just make sure you consistently set up fast. Ideally, it'd get built into the FMS and would be skippable if a conditions mean you don't have to enforce it or teams all get off the field super-quick.

[FrankJ]

I was at Perry for the inaugural Georgia Southern Classic. Fortunately we ran pretty much on time without the issues elsewhere. Field reset actually went pretty quickly. I didn't see any issues with teams taking too long to set up their robots so G10 never really came into play. But G10 needs flexibility to suit the varying conditions. Running on time or early you can afford to be lenient. But since there is a limited amount time to complete the competition, the best we can hope for is that management (referees, etc) use their best GP & communication skills to let teams know about the changing conditions. On the team side, common sense should tell you if the matches are running late, you need to be efficient getting on & off the field. Despite the subject line of this thread, please do not take this to be a specific comment about Dallas. I was not there.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by rich2202

That may affect when you get on the field, but, once you are at your placement location, and the location is clear, your 60 seconds starts, regardless of what is happening on the rest of the field.



Any team that takes more than 60 seconds to setup. However, if a team routinely takes 65 seconds, I probably won't notice them. But, if I do notice them, you can bet that they are taking more than 60 seconds.

Yes, they get warnings, and a lot of slack during early qualification matches.

After a few matches of being warned, that is when I will be a PIA to them. They will also know that I am telling the Head Ref about them.



If a team is complying with the 60 second guideline, they have comfort in knowing that they will not be disabled because of the rule. Just because you may be in reasonable compliance doesn't mean that you have earned back an extended grace period.



I don't know the specifics about Dallas. If a team has been sufficiently warned, then the disabled should not be a surprise to them. If they had not been warned, then I think that is a problem. In practice matches, we were calling a lot of fouls. That is like a warning to the teams. By the time we got to eliminations, no fouls were being called. We didn't get more lax at calling fouls. The Teams were getting better at not committing them.

I think the 60 second guideline is: you know it when you see it. Obviously there will be extenuating circumstances, and a team should get more time. But, 99% of the time, a team knows when their 60 seconds starts - they are at their location, and able to place their robot. IMHO: All the other what-if's are red herrings. In general, the Ref's can see the situation, and adjust accordingly. Now, if teams are fighting over who goes where, that is an Alliance Problem, not a Ref/Field problem.

Rich-

I think your interpretation of the rule is fair, reasonable and a good example of how to enforce it across every event.

The issue is that not every referee is you, and actually can (as depicted in the various examples across this thread) widely vary from the method you are describing.

Unfortunately there are situations that have already occurred that leave teams in a bad position and force us to protect ourselves. We need to ensure we are not surprised by rule interpretations when we get to an event.

This clarification is something I think all of us would really like to see, somewhere in 'black and white'.

-Brando

[MrRoboSteve]

There's a tension here between individual team experience and collective team experience that needs to be recognized. Individual teams want to make sure that they can run their robot in each match. Collectively, teams want the event to run roughly on schedule (volunteer availability, team member's schedules, transportation, meals, etc) and want to maximize the number of matches.

The rules allows those running the event to strike a balance. At Northern Lights, the following things held true:

1. No team received less than 60 seconds to set their robot up on the field.
2. Every team that was slow enough to delay the event were told they were slow. Those teams all knew they were slow without us telling them. They were told that we would be less tolerant during quals than during practice.
3. No team was disabled for overrunning the setup time.
4. Nearly all teams solved their slowness problems on Friday.

I think the standard from the team perspective is pretty straightforward. You should be able to set up and position your robot in 60 seconds. You can choose to take longer than that, but you run the risk that you end up disabled because you're delaying the event.

[Jon Stratis]

I can say that, as an inspector, I tried to help teams as best I could with the set up time. There was one team that specifically comes to mind that added a gripper halfway through the competition, and it had to be attached on the field. When they came up to have it inspected, I did the usual stuff - sharp edges, weight, sizing box, etc. But I also asked them to attach the gripper to the robot. My intent with that was to verify it wouldn't cause issues (like gouging the scoring platforms), but I also times them. When it took about 90 seconds, I warned them that they would need to practice it to get it fast enough for the field. It's not part of the inspection, and they passed without any issue, but I was hoping that they would take the warning to heart, Practice orc and then not have issues setting up on the field. Just a little something extra to help their weekend go smoothly.

With something like this, teams need to consider 60 seconds to be a hard and fast rule. The need to design, build, and practice to ensure they are faster than 60 seconds. And then the field needs to give teams as much leeway as possible, while still maintaining the overall event schedule. While the volunteers are focused on the team experience, we have 60 teams we're worried about, not just the one team that's taking a bit long to get set up. We'll do everything we can to ensure every team has a good time, but the teams need to be focused on their experience as well. Part of that is the experience of engineering to a fixed set of requirements, one of which is the on field setup. It's a harsh lesson to learn sometimes, but the process of engineering isn't just designing something cool. It's designing something cool that meets all of the requirements handed down to you.

So treat the 60 seconds as a fixed limit, and trust in the volunteers to do what they can to assist you and ensure you not only play, but play on time so those watching from home can see your match when they expect to.

[scca229]

*Jon above said this much better, but still leaving mine as I feel better now.*


I'm guessing that this won't be popular, but since I'm going to have to deal with this crap in weeks 5 & 6 (maybe 4), and watching several threads all whining about the same thing, I'm going to spill it.

/being rant

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what the issue really is here. This is sounding a whole lot like my 11-year-old and 7-year-old having a "discussion". Frankly it is amazing to me that it is the "adults" that are the vocal ones here, but I will assume that teams only want one public voice and not a whole slew.

As far as I am aware, that 60 sec "guideline" has been in the Game Manual since Kickoff. It was not a surprise addition 5 weeks into Build Season that should suddenly make a team have to redesign their entire robot because their setup takes 2 minutes and they CHOSE to ignore it. In my OPINION (was that plain enough?), a HUGE part of the Engineering Challenge for this game with the very relaxed on-field dimensions was this exact thing.

Did the Mentors and Engineers complaining REALLY think that it wouldn't be watched during the competition? If so, then why in the heck would you think the GDC would even put that blue box there in the unarguably slimmed down manual for this year? That blue box gives examples of things that can cause a team to be called for a G10. Section F says specifically, "prolonged assembly/disassembly of a ROBOT to transform is from its TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION," and a specified guideline for that assembly/disassembly says, "ROBOTS should be configurable in less than sixty (60) seconds." Yes, the 60 seconds was not in the white section, but it should give you pause for thought that they took the time to put it in there at all and maybe think, "Ya know, we ought to design to setup in less than 60 seconds."

THIS ISN'T HARD. If your team did not follow the guideline and just built a bot with the thought of, "They aren't going to enforce it anyway," then figure out a way now. Do the Engineers complaining completely ignore any guidelines in documentation in their particular fields like many want to do here?

Bringing up, "But we paid money to ignore the rules," also doesn't really fly since this was not a post-kickoff rule.

/end rant

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by scca229

*Jon above said this much better, but still leaving mine as I feel better now.*


I'm guessing that this won't be popular, but since I'm going to have to deal with this crap in weeks 5 & 6 (maybe 4), and watching several threads all whining about the same thing, I'm going to spill it.

/being rant

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what the issue really is here. This is sounding a whole lot like my 11-year-old and 7-year-old having a "discussion". Frankly it is amazing to me that it is the "adults" that are the vocal ones here, but I will assume that teams only want one public voice and not a whole slew.

As far as I am aware, that 60 sec "guideline" has been in the Game Manual since Kickoff. It was not a surprise addition 5 weeks into Build Season that should suddenly make a team have to redesign their entire robot because their setup takes 2 minutes and they CHOSE to ignore it.

/end rant

Nate,

We are not complaining. We are asking for some clarification and STANDARDIZATION. And yes, many of us are the voice for our teams for issues like this. Since Frank and the GDC monitor these threads I believe it is a good place to have such discussion. I respect your opinion, but simply disagree with it.

For everyone, here is G10 to reference:

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

--Start 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. DRIVE TEAM efforts that either intentionally or unintentionally delay the start of a MATCH are not allowed. Examples of
such delays include, but are not limited to:
A. prolonged use of alignment devices such as templates, tape measures, laser pointers, etc. to precisely place and/or align the ROBOT
B. late arrival to the FIELD
C. being indecisive about where/how to position a ROBOT or Yellow TOTE
D. failing to exit the FIELD once the green lights in the ALLIANCE STATIONS have turned off (indicating MATCH ready)
E. charging pneumatic systems, or any other ROBOT maintenance, once on the FIELD
F. prolonged assembly/disassembly of a ROBOT to transform it from its TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION
-- End Blue Box --

I can tell you that G10 was arbitrarily enforced by the letter of G10. As a matter of fact, all of the disables happened BEFORE the green light was even on (yes, the robots that were disabled were already powered on).

I highlighted "configurable" because this, to me, is the crux of the communication issue. My team read this as "don't make a robot that takes longer than 60 seconds to put together with the new rules". We did not read it as do not take longer than 60 seconds to be back in the driver's station. Why didn't we read it that way? Because, on average, it has taken longer than 60 seconds for this in the past. This rule, to us, was a limitation on how much assembly and robot configuring you could do and seemed reasonable to us.

However, it is being enforced differently than that.



Paul

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by scca229

*Jon above said this much better, but still leaving mine as I feel better now.*


I'm guessing that this won't be popular, but since I'm going to have to deal with this crap in weeks 5 & 6 (maybe 4), and watching several threads all whining about the same thing, I'm going to spill it.

/being rant

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what the issue really is here. This is sounding a whole lot like my 11-year-old and 7-year-old having a "discussion". Frankly it is amazing to me that it is the "adults" that are the vocal ones here, but I will assume that teams only want one public voice and not a whole slew.

As far as I am aware, that 60 sec "guideline" has been in the Game Manual since Kickoff. It was not a surprise addition 5 weeks into Build Season that should suddenly make a team have to redesign their entire robot because their setup takes 2 minutes and they CHOSE to ignore it. In my OPINION (was that plain enough?), a HUGE part of the Engineering Challenge for this game with the very relaxed on-field dimensions was this exact thing.

Did the Mentors and Engineers complaining REALLY think that it wouldn't be watched during the competition? If so, then why in the heck would you think the GDC would even put that blue box there in the unarguably slimmed down manual for this year? That blue box gives examples of things that can cause a team to be called for a G10. Section F says specifically, "prolonged assembly/disassembly of a ROBOT to transform is from its TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION," and a specified guideline for that assembly/disassembly says, "ROBOTS should be configurable in less than sixty (60) seconds." Yes, the 60 seconds was not in the white section, but it should give you pause for thought that they took the time to put it in there at all and maybe think, "Ya know, we ought to design to setup in less than 60 seconds."

THIS ISN'T HARD. If your team did not follow the guideline and just built a bot with the thought of, "They aren't going to enforce it anyway," then figure out a way now. Do the Engineers complaining completely ignore any guidelines in documentation in their particular fields like many want to do here?

Bringing up, "But we paid money to ignore the rules," also doesn't really fly since this was not a post-kickoff rule.

/end rant

You just don't get it. Paul's post above summarizes the facts well.

Past that, there is a higher level argument.

We pay lots of money, and the goal is to give students a good experience (in my mind). Decisions that are arbitrary that lead to a lot of pain on students are bad. These should be minimized.

We pay to compete BEFORE we see the rules, it's on FIRST to minimize (ideally to zero) the amount of rules that give kids a negative experience. They've generally done a good job of this.

The unfortunate issue here is volunteers are clearly making this FAR more punitive than what FIRST intended.

A reasonable person assumes the rule means 60 seconds to configure, separate from the traditional setup time. I'd wager just about any team with a shooter auto last year took longer than 60 seconds to setup every single match.



If FIRST clarifies we must do it all in 60 seconds, we will. We reserve the right to be grumpy about an arbitrary decision that just hurts the kids however.



Oh, also. Paul won the Woodie Flowers Award at champs, and is all around a good dude. I don't think it's reasonable to label his "whining" (which wasn't whining) as that of a 7 year old. Please read this before replying again.

[Joe Johnson]

I agree with a lot of the points that Paul C. makes.

My reason for starting this thread was to have a discussion around consistency of rules more than the details of this particular rule.

I also was poking FIRST a bit, yes, because, frankly, I am left scratching my head around the question of "what problem is FIRST solving by not providing clarity around this issue?" It is clear from the FRC Blog that they know there is a problem with consistent enforcement. It is also clear that the rule is deliberately vague. I assume that they are working behind the scenes to address this for Week 2 and beyond. So why are they not clearing this up publicly?

As I type right now, I believe I have a reasonable theory. FIRST does not want clarity. When a team is just not going to be able to compete under a strict limit, they want to be able to look the other way. BUT but but, they don't want to make this an official policy because

A) if team gets ridiculous with respect to the transformation time, they want to be able to rein them in and
B) they don't want to upset folks who will no doubt say, "if I knew I had X extra seconds above and beyond 60 , I would have designed a completely different robot that would have played on Einstein. Guaranteed!"

I don't know if this the really the reason for the lack of clarification but it does seem to explain things.

Dr. Joe J.

[IronicDeadBird]

This entire thread is just a grim reminder to me that the Q&A system is my least talked to friend. This rule seemed clear cut in my mind all it did was add an engineering constraint to the robot. All these responses though prove it is anything but clear.

[Mr. B]

I find most of the comments crazy!!!
I can see no reason (other than safety issues) for a robot to be disabled in the elimination rounds ! PERIOD!!!

[wireties]

Originally Posted by scca229

I'm guessing that this won't be popular, but since I'm going to have to deal with this crap in weeks 5 & 6 (maybe 4), and watching several threads all whining about the same thing, I'm going to spill it.

With respect, if you knew this wasn't going to be popular perhaps a better choice of language next time?

You see a few professionals engaging in this thread because they are good at analyzing the "big picture" and recognizing risks of all kinds. The G10-related enforcement issues are a clear and present risk to the experience of the students and the fairness of the game.

Without a giant clock (or maybe one on each side like basketball or football) and a crystal clear modification of G10 enforcement is a judgement call by the refs. Even in this thread there are well-intentioned refs with differing opinions. Paul is absolutely correct, "clarification and STANDARDIZATION" is necessary. If I were a ref I'd probably go with a 3-strike setup with plenty of communications with teams, sending emissaries to the pits etc. It would all be very professional and courteous unlike the refs yelling at my students (about a chute door stuck open by a failed mechanism) at Dallas.

[scca229]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

You just don't get it. Paul's post above summarizes the facts well.

Oh, also. Paul won the Woodie Flowers Award at champs, and is all around a good dude. I don't think it's reasonable to label his "whining" (which wasn't whining) as that of a 7 year old. Please read this before replying again.

Be assured that I will read the link, although not at this time since it doesn't say exactly what it is about, but I will kindly ignore the "sit in the corner" order.

As said at the beginning of my post, my rant was not directed at anyone in particular, let alone Paul, although I'm not sure what a Woodie Flowers Award has to do with it (I apologize that I apparently do not understand the real reason for the award yet, although if anyone wants to chat with me at Vegas or Arizona East & West I will be happy to). It was directed at the tone of the myriad of threads that have been opened for this same exact issue which pretty much all have degraded into whining.

I'll repeat. THIS ISN'T HARD. I guess I'm looking forward to when FIRST releases the manual with a "Here is what you CAN do" instead of "Here is what you CAN'T do". But then CD will be a ghost town.