AndyMark G04 / R03 Communication Contest

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

I am not Jon. And I don't know your answer to your question. But. the rules don't allow for any variance from vigorous robot interaction. So if you got noticeably "diamonded" and violated volume constraints, you would be expected to fix it.

I agree with that. Regardless of the method used, it must ensure that robots fit within the volume specified. You cannot do that with a simple tape measure, as a tape measure cannot ensure a frame is properly squared. A parallelogram may measure appropriately from edge to edge, yet stick outside of the prescribed volume!

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I agree with that. Regardless of the method used, it must ensure that robots fit within the volume specified. You cannot do that with a simple tape measure, as a tape measure cannot ensure a frame is properly squared. A parallelogram may measure appropriately from edge to edge, yet stick outside of the prescribed volume!

... and this is my concern.

Newer teams have not had to fit their 'bot into a sizing box.
Old school teams will (should) know better but the younger teams may not understand why their robot meets the measurements (with a tape measure) but doesn't fit in the area allowed.

[rich2202]

Might be a good year to implement a 2 tiered Inspection:

1) Violates R03: Ok to compete, but not ok to advance (alliance selection)
2) Fully compliant: Ok to compete and advance.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by rich2202

Might be a good year to implement a 2 tiered Inspection:

1) Violates R03: Ok to compete, but not ok to advance (alliance selection)
2) Fully compliant: Ok to compete and advance.

I would be pretty upset if I lost 2 ranking points by losing to a team that was larger than the rules allowed.

To be fair, I would also be upset at competing 2v3 because my alliance partner didn't pass inspection.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I would be pretty upset if I lost 2 ranking points by losing to a team that was larger than the rules allowed.

In theory, it roughly balances out in the end.

To be fair, I would also be upset at competing 2v3 because my alliance partner didn't pass inspection.

It is less about you, and more about the non-compliant team. Teams spend a lot of effort and money to get to a competition. DQ'ing them and not allowing them to compete at all would totally ruin their season. RI's jump through a lot of hoops to help get non-compliant teams onto the field. Most solutions require disabling the non-compliant system. Unfortunately, non-compliant chassis is not an easy fix.

Letting non-compliant teams compete, but not advance, at least lets the team get on the field for their 6-8 matches. That's about as far as 2/3rds of the teams make it anyway.

Letting them on the field is Gracious Professionalism. Complaining that they may have a marginal affect on your rankings is not.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by rich2202

In theory, it roughly balances out in the end.



It is less about you, and more about the non-compliant team. Teams spend a lot of effort and money to get to a competition. DQ'ing them and not allowing them to compete at all would totally ruin their season. RI's jump through a lot of hoops to help get non-compliant teams onto the field. Most solutions require disabling the non-compliant system. Unfortunately, non-compliant chassis is not an easy fix.

Letting non-compliant teams compete, but not advance, at least lets the team get on the field for their 6-8 matches. That's about as far as 2/3rds of the teams make it anyway.

Letting them on the field is Gracious Professionalism. Complaining that they may have a marginal affect on your rankings is not.

Getting them onto the field in a legal configuration is Gracious Professionalism. Back in 2013, there were two teams at each of the events I volunteered at that built their robots to the previous year's dimensions. Inspectors and other teams jumped in to help them cut 10" off the front of their robots and rework all of their mechanisms. All 4 of those teams made it to their first match. They may not of performed as well as their robot did before surgery, but they still got to play the game, they still got to work towards improvements and they were still eligible for alliance selection (I couldn't tell you how any of those teams ranked or if they made it to Saturday afternoon, unfortunately). And, I would hazard to say, everyone on those teams learned an important lesson in reading through all of the requirements for a project. That, right there, is the challenge for the inspectors and every team - working towards getting everyone at your event compliant with the rules so they can make their first match with a legal robot.

I don't think it's a bad thing to worry about how a team with an illegal robot will affect rankings. It doesn't all balance out in the end, as the qualifying rounds aren't nearly complete enough for such a thing to have no affect. As we've seen, a lucky schedule can propel a team to being an alliance captain, while an unlucky schedule can drop you way down in the rankings. Looking at the big picture, which is more gracious, allowing 1 team to compete with an illegal robot, or allowing the other 59 teams (at a 60 team regional) to compete on a level playing field?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by rich2202

In theory, it roughly balances out in the end.

Only if the non-compliant team has a 40% win%. They have 3 opponents they negatively influence every time they win, and only 2 partners they positively influence. As such, it requires 3 losses to every 2 wins in order for them to have a neutral impact on the standings. And even then, specific teams are going to have boons with others have negative influence.

Not to mention that winning and losing matches is a big deal in the district format, as your ranking is a crucial component of determining if you advance to the district championship and then the FRC Championship.

Originally Posted by rich2202

It is less about you, and more about the non-compliant team. Teams spend a lot of effort and money to get to a competition. DQ'ing them and not allowing them to compete at all would totally ruin their season. RI's jump through a lot of hoops to help get non-compliant teams onto the field. Most solutions require disabling the non-compliant system. Unfortunately, non-compliant chassis is not an easy fix.

Letting non-compliant teams compete, but not advance, at least lets the team get on the field for their 6-8 matches. That's about as far as 2/3rds of the teams make it anyway.

I fully understand the angle you're coming from. However, I have also experienced multiple incidents where teams showed up with robots built to the wrong dimensions in the past, and with the help of various teams at the event, they were able to compete. Nobody is getting "DQ'd" in this scenario, they're getting told to make their robot compliant before they are allowed on the field.

Originally Posted by rich2202

Letting them on the field is Gracious Professionalism. Complaining that they may have a marginal affect on your rankings is not.

Gracious professionalism is an ideal that teams and individuals strive for, not a measuring stick to evaluate the actions of others.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by rich2202

Letting them on the field is Gracious Professionalism. Complaining that they may have a marginal affect on your rankings is not.

I would say it is gracious, but it is not professional. Obviously it is a nice thing to do. But not enforcing the rules punishes the teams who follow them, and reduces their legitimacy overall.

This isn't the first, second, third time a rule change will result in some teams having to modify their frames at events. In FTC, I had to do this at my very first robotics event ever. It's part of the experience, and I don't think that experience should be taken away from teams. The rules should matter.

A single win or loss is not a "marginal" effect on your rankings. It's the difference between the #1 seed and the number #3 seed, or the difference between #4 seed and #10 seed. It's not "un-GP" to want to play the same game under the same rules as your opponents despite differing personal goals.

[engunneer]

Originally Posted by rich2202

Unfortunately, non-compliant chassis is not an easy fix.

At the risk of turning this into an "inspectors war stories" thread, we had a robot ant an event once that was >160 pounds and made entirely of steel and angle iron. RIs will do what it takes to get that team legal and playing, hopefully before their first match. This particular case was a saws-all and a good judge of how short to make the robot to get 40+ pounds off.

Seriously, we need an inspection war stories thread, so I made one here

[Andy Baker]

We need more entries!

This is a reminder that this contest is over at midnight (well, 11:59.59 pm) on Wednesday, Feb. 1st.

See here for more rules.

$250 of AndyMark credit is at stake!

Andy B.

[Ari423]

Any chance we can get an idea of current submissions so we can get an idea of how much effort we have to put in to have a chance of winning?

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Ari423

Any chance we can get an idea of current submissions so we can get an idea of how much effort we have to put in to have a chance of winning?

Nope.

Even if you don't win the $250, the teams who you educate about this rule will be the winners.

The FIRST Community needs a bunch of entries!

Andy B.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Ari423

Any chance we can get an idea of current submissions so we can get an idea of how much effort we have to put in to have a chance of winning?

Hey Ari423,

Don't want you to worry about having to put in effort for anything in the world of FRC, etc. so I went ahead and did the hard work for you, all I ask for is a 50% cut of the proceeds for my..err...your hard work

[NShep98]

I tried emailing at "contests" and "contest" (it's listed differently on the website and on Andy's original post) and got it bounced back both times.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by NShep98

I tried emailing at "contests" and "contest" (it's listed differently on the website and on Andy's original post) and got it bounced back both times.

Same