Uniform rules and enforcers?

[Ben Mitchell]

During my three years in FIRST, I've noticed that FIRST is a lot like The Matrix.

Some rules can be bent, others broken, others enforced half the time, others not enforced at all.

I believe that there should be some more concrete definitions in the rulebook of what phrases like "intentional damage" mean. At one regional, it was only evoked if damage was done due to the opposing alliance's actions on a robot directly. At another, it was evoked when no damage was done. At the championships, it was only used if serious damage was done (and not needed, in the end, in my division).

At some regionals, 'mouse-bot' machines were disallowed, at others, allowed. Some out of tape measures totally against the rules - still allowed.

I've heard some horror stories filtering out of regionals with teams using 4 drill motors, simply switching motors when the judges left.

Or teams designing robots in a way to flip others simply by design (wedge) yet were not disqualified outright for creating a robot designed to flip others. (This was common enough for me to notice at competitions)

I've heard of team getting away with things simply because they had people on the inspecting staff, or perhaps no one thought thier robot would do well, and thus let them use duct tape on thier machine.

My question is fourfold.

1) What does it take to be a referee/inspector? - Don't get me wrong, most of them do a fine job, but some of them seemed to have some bias that would interfere with judging an event.

2) Would some sort of entrance exam based on the rules of the game be a good idea to ensure that refs all have a good understanding of the rules?

3) If FIRST really wants to grow, wouldn't they need paid refs, just like real sports' organizations?

4) Would random inspections be a good idea?