G10, The Dallas Disable & Crickets Chirping in Manchester

[NeonGreen]

I can understand the frustration of many folks around the vagueness and/or inconsistency in applying G10, and I think it is appropriate that we try to make sure teams are treated fairly and have a good experience.

That said, I took it as a given in the design of the game that the ability to take a robot from transportation configuration to competition ready in a short time is one of the design parameters this year. The introduction explicitly pointed out that teams would have huge latitude in what a robot looks like on the field, then immediately warned about delays and mentioned the 60-second guideline. They also explicitly clamped down on some other gray areas, such as use of webcams for a "hybrid" autonomous. I see it as inviting creativity and innovation, but attaching some risk to going outside the box.

It seemed clear to me that they were inviting a risk/reward calculation – go ahead and add conveyor belts, tethered helpers, and such, but you must be able to assemble it quickly. I guessed that their hesitation to set a hard and fast time limit was to prevent "rules lawyers" from trying to win simply by making sure other teams get penalized. Hence, I can understand the use of vague and general goals rather than specific rules.

As a mentor for a team that discarded some designs as impractical because of the time parameters, I don't want infinite laxity. I think Rich actually has outlined a pretty reasonable approach in which teams who are pushing the limits have the expectations made clear to them.

Make the team experience the top priority. Then make sure that nobody is exploiting that to gain an advantage counter to the spirit of the game and slow everything down in the process.

[Brandon Holley]

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

Hey Nate-

There is a term in conflict resolution called "Frames" that I feel fits here. You are framing some pretty large assumptions that the reason we are complaining is because we never thought this would actually be enforced. There are a lot of pretty interesting assumptions you are making. I actually find it a bit humorous to insinuate that this cast of characters overlooked ANYTHING in the rule book...

Quite honestly you're entire post is insinuating that because we're being vocal (and we're adults) we must be trying to skirt the rules to gain an advantage.

Let me frame some things for you: my team never leaves transport configuration, we built to always fit inside of the transport config box.

I am being vocal about this issue because if I have a firm understanding of what to expect and how the rules will be enforced, I can ensure my team knows what to look for (for ourselves, our partners and our opponents). This in my opinion is what good coaches do, regardless of sport or activity.

I'm also trying to make FRC a better place where we do not have instances of ambiguous rule interpretation governing team experience.


-Brando

[Andrew Duerner]

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!!!

I agree with this statement. With the thousands of hours put into these robots by students who are very emotionally tied to their project, to have their work negated by a timing issue is incredibly sad and personally damaging. From my personal experience mentoring a team affected by the hacking problem of 2012, one of the biggest issues was having the chance to compete, win or lose, being stripped away.

On a side note, from someone that watched the Dallas regional, how often or number of times was this delay of match penalty enforced? Also did the offending team have a significantly longer delay in the eliminations than their normal set up time in the qualifications?

-Andrew

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by 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!!!

Umm, I can think of one very good one.

That's what the rules say.

Not enforcing the rules is unfair to the teams that invested a lot of time and effort into following them, let alone those that may have compromised some aspects of a design.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by 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!!!

Once again not applying this spefically to Dallas, a disable beats a red card for a rule infraction during eliminations. At least from an alliance point of view. Specifically commenting on Dallas, the other Frank was clearly not happy with the results. I take him at his word that steps will be taken to make the way incidents like are handled better going forward.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

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.

I think this is right on the nose. I'm a soccer referee, and there's a rule that this whole discussion is reminding me of - the rule that goalies can only hold on to the ball for 6 seconds. It says...

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:

Controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession.

But what does "controls" mean? Does bouncing the ball, as most goalies do, count as "releasing possession"? These things are taught in referee classes, but not in the rulebook or to the public. But the main thing I was taught about that rule is that it should only be called in the most egregious circumstances, after multiple or outrageous violations.

It sounds a lot to me like G10 was intended to be somewhat similar.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Not enforcing the rules is unfair to the teams that invested a lot of time and effort into following them, let alone those that may have compromised some aspects of a design.

That is one of my pet peeves as a RI. I submitted a suggestion to First that they have 2 levels of inspection: Inspected for Qualifications, and Inspected for Elimination.

If a team's chassis is 1/2 inch bigger than transport configuration, do you want to prevent them from any competition (very hard to reduce chassis size by 1/2 inch in a short amount of time)? In that instance, I think you pass them for Qualifications, but DQ them for Eliminations. That way, they can participate, but not be unfair to the other teams that built within the rules.

As a Ref, I had a similar attitude: Very lenient at the beginning of qualifications, and getting more and more strict as the tournament progressed. Ideally, by the last match we are playing Elimination rules so if a team is disabled, the other teams have notice regarding the risk of picking that team for the Elimination Round.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by bduddy

I think this is right on the nose. I'm a soccer referee, and there's a rule that this whole discussion is reminding me of - the rule that goalies can only hold on to the ball for 6 seconds. It says...
But what does "controls" mean? Does bouncing the ball, as most goalies do, count as "releasing possession"? These things are taught in referee classes, but not in the rulebook or to the public. But the main thing I was taught about that rule is that it should only be called in the most egregious circumstances, after multiple or outrageous violations.

It sounds a lot to me like G10 was intended to be somewhat similar.

I believe in soccer minor fouls are ignored if they do not effect play? I think it is the "play on rule"

[wireties]

Originally Posted by rich2202

That is one of my pet peeves as a RI. I submitted a suggestion to First that they have 2 levels of inspection: Inspected for Qualifications, and Inspected for Elimination.

If a team's chassis is 1/2 inch bigger than transport configuration, do you want to prevent them from any competition (very hard to reduce chassis size by 1/2 inch in a short amount of time)? In that instance, I think you pass them for Qualifications, but DQ them for Eliminations. That way, they can participate, but not be unfair to the other teams that built within the rules.

As a Ref, I had a similar attitude: Very lenient at the beginning of qualifications, and getting more and more strict as the tournament progressed. Ideally, by the last match we are playing Elimination rules so if a team is disabled, the other teams have notice regarding the risk of picking that team for the Elimination Round.

Very well meaning but getting into subjective territory - teams need something they can count on match to match and event to event. I can understand leniency during practice but letting a robot that is too-large participate in qualification rounds? That has never been tolerated. I can live with the apparent admonishment by Frank (and FIRST) to emphasize the "team experience". But if week 2 is a mess G10 needs immediate clarification.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

I believe in soccer minor fouls are ignored if they do not effect play? I think it is the "play on rule"

Digression: Unless it's an American thing, I believe the 'play on' rule is about playing on if doing so gives an advantage (or doesn't harm) the team that "suffered" (ie the victim team of the offence). I think the goalie bouncing a ball is an example of a class of rules that tend to be ignored by referees, or interpreted differently, to avoid egregious officiating, or 'common sense' application of rules. Handballs are often not ruled by the letter of the law (or there would be more yellow cards). The laws have become a framework for which referees can pick and choose interpretation based on precedent and circumstance, usually as a reaction to popular opinion.

The analogy is apt for this situation.

If a referee decided to penalise a goalkeeper for holding on to the ball for seven seconds, there would be an uproar, even though it's written in the rules. In a situation like this, where actually timing each team rigorously is unsustainable, what's more important: consistency with the rules or consistency across all events?

[Nick.kremer]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

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.

I think what Adam is saying here is crux of the issue here.

To summarize what Adam is saying, I'm going to layout a typical robot field setup procedure, and the two ways I believe rule G10 has interpreted this past week:

Robot Field Setup Procedure:
A. Team members enter the field with the robot, and move to the general location where it will be at the start of the match.

B. Team members unfold their robot out its transportation configuration.

C. Team members precisely align robot for their autonomous routine.

D. Team members exit the field and take up positions at their driver station/ human player station

Rule Interpretation 1:
Teams must complete items A - D in around 60 seconds.

Rule Interpretation 2:
Teams must complete item B in around 60 seconds, and are given the usual unspecified amount of time to complete items A, C, and D.



I would argue that it would have been hard for teams to complete items A, C, and D in seasons past in around 60 seconds (assuming they have an autonomous routine) , and its almost impossible to comply with Rule Interpretation 1 in around 60 seconds.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

I believe in soccer minor fouls are ignored if they do not effect play? I think it is the "play on rule"

Not really. If it would be better for the other team to temporarily ignore the foul, then that should be done. But the other team can still be punished if no advantage ensues, or if the foul is worthy of a yellow or red card.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by 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.

I believe this is exactly what happened. I think this rule was only intended to prevent teams for planning on a long set up time, and arm referees with the ability to hurry up teams who consistently take extraordinary amounts of time. Not as a strict punitive wrist-slap without warning (which is what so distressed Frank and the community).

It's worth noting that what the GDC has to do every year is very difficult, and it's not surprising that they create ambiguity in order to lean on referees to account for edge cases. Unfortunately they are victims of their own success; in order to inspire students, they wanted FRC to be taken seriously as a competition, and as a serious competition, it has to live up to the matching standards and scrutiny of its competitors and fans. Especially considering the time, energy and money it requires.

Also the fact that they foster a community of engineering, out-of-the-box thinkers doesn't make it easier...