Uniform rules and enforcers?

[Matt Leese]

Having inspected robots in the past, let me be the first to say that it's not a particularly easy job. You have to remember that there's one inspector for each robot which means that that one inspector has to know about all aspects of the robot. The two key parts of the inspection are the electronics and the pneumatics. Now, personally, I know the electronic rules quite well. I don't know the pneumatic rules that well at all. I did have some help with the pneumatic side of things (thanks ChrisH) but I'm sure there were some teams that managed to slip by with something slightly out of spec because I just didn't know enough about the pneumatics (and I'm sure the action was misadvertant and not intentional but mistakes happen). On the flip side of things, I know that I probably made some teams change some electrical things that most inspectors would let go through as it was incidental (I'm picky on my wiring).

All in all, it'd be quite hard to standardize things like inspection simply because there's so much variation among both people and teams.

Matt

[Gadget470]

Perhaps the concept of Jack of All Trades, Master of None.. shouldn't be applying to judges.

When someone has to memorize every rule, and know the possibly swaying within them (those borderline robots, for example, 68 before removing the extensions which would "hold" the outside rails) there is bound to be a lapse somewhere. Someone will get by that shouldn't, intentional or not.

Having people that are instructed to know certain parts of the rules could likely alleviate a vast majority.

Inspector 1: Checks for obvious errors. Weight, Size, Sharp corners, Motor Count, Cylinder count, Light working.
Inspector 2: Checks for Electrical specific errors. Breakers, Battery hookup, motor/speed controller modifications
Inspector 3: Checks for Pneumatic specific erros. Custom connectors, compressor issues, PSI Gauge, Sollenoid type count.
Inspector 4: Other rules that pertain to the game specifically. Such as "No retroreflective tape allowed on robot" .. Insp. 4 checks for things like retroreflective tape. If mouse-bot type things aren't allowed, this is where they get stopped. Even though the mouse-bot passes everything else.

Sneaking past a stressed inspector is probably not to difficult, but sneaking past one who is a master of the specific components is going to be hard.

It wouldn't be 1 inspector watching 20 teams, it could easily be 4 inspectors watching 80 teams. With better accuracy at rules being followed.

[Matt Leese]

The problem with having a group of inspectors to inspect robots is there simply aren't enough people to do it. There are a limited number of inspectors and they need to finish inspecting all the robots in a fairly small time period.

And on more controversial issues it's usually left up to the head inspector to make the decision. Although I do know the decision has been made even higher up in the past.

Matt

[Sam Fladung]

I volunteered as an inspector at the Houston Nationals, and the excuses teams tried to use to get around rules were mindbending. Accidental violations are what inspectors are there to detect, the intentional violations simply are against the spirit of FIRST.

One team attempted to use a piece of aluminum as a bumper, arguing that under the rules it was not a "hard material". (The term was defined two places, once as a material that hurt if you hit it, and once as any wood metal or hard plastic). It took about 15 minutes of discussion with the teams and other inspectors to resolve the dispute.

Another team used old 883 motor controllers in place of the 884s. They "cleverly" disguised these by placing tape over the names. However, two controllers flash differently when no oi is present, and are thus easily identifiable. Even after performing this test, the team denied that they had any 883s on the robot. (By the way, I was overruled on this and they were allowed to keep the 883s)

Another team wired twelve volts and ground to ajacent bolts extending through the bottom of the frame. They argued that they wern't custom terminal strips because they were only single wires, whereas a strip contained multiple. Either way, exposed power on the underside of a robot can be very dangerous. (The resolution that waas eventually agreed upon: tape over them. ????)

Teams ought to build their robots to conform with the rules, and be willing to modify them if it is found to be illegal.

And please don't use the excuse that "they allowed this at the last regional."

[Ben Mitchell]

See now, there shouldn't be lee-way in using illegal materials, illegal wiring, etc.

and I liked the idea of specialized inspectors. If you get teams of inspectors each doing a different aspect of the robot, things would go much faster.

Or simply inspect robots thursday afternoon, before the actual games begins.

[Matt Leese]

The question frequently isn't whether or not something that is illegal should be allowed but whether or not a certain item is illegal. Unfortunately, lots of people interpret the rules very differently from others. It's simply not that cut and dried.

I'd also point out that all inspections should be done on the Thursday of a competition during the practice rounds. There are usually a few teams that don't get inspected until Friday but that's the exception.

Matt

[The Lucas]

Originally posted by Sam Fladung
And please don't use the excuse that "they allowed this at the last regional."

I hate that line. Everyone assumes that if they passed inspection at the last regional, then you are just wasting their time and they don't have to listen to you. Many teams don't take it well when you tell them "you shouldn't have passed inspection last regional". I inspected at Drexel last year and some of the teams that passed inspection at previous competitions had obvious issues such as too many solenoids or no 40 amp breakers.

Some teams were very hostile about changing things when I noticed obvious violations. There is no reason for hostility, I am a volunteer trying to ensure a safe and fair competition, I am not here to make their lives miserable. I think one of the main problems is FIRST rules are often "soft" and are changed mid-season (*cough* tape measure, light visibility *cough*) so teams don't think they have to follow any rule cause if they complain enough it will be changed the next week. If FIRST enforced rules strictly no one would challenge them.

Since I have been on both sides of an inspection, I can understand the need for intelligent debate over the interpretation of some vague rules. I have won debates with inspectors (by won I mean the inspectors finally saw my point and agreed). I also lost a debate over wire size as an inspector (I was wrong and apologized for the hassle). I thought FIRST rules required 10 AWG wire from the breaker to all speed controllers regardless of the (small) motor connected to it.

Inspection is a big job for the few inspectors at the each competition. All teams must be inspected in 1 day and many wait till the last minute and/or require multiple inspections before they pass. It is difficult to get enough people with the know-how to be good inspectors. Even some professional engineers are not familiar enough with with the FIRST motors, controls, or pneumatics to notice violations. I remember one engineer inspector asked my team how our "hydraulic tanks worked without springs in them to keep the pressure", then we reminded him that they are pneumatic tanks.

[dddriveman]

Personally I think that alot of the inspectors are doing a good job. I have personally see alot of things slip but, they were not intentional or have a basis in any way. I think that we need to give the inspectors more credit at a regional event there are alot of teams that must be inspected. I think a good solution would be to have more inspectors like teams of two inspectors that inspect the robots. That way if one catchs something that the other didn't it can be brought to attention or decisions may be challenged. I like the idea of random inspections but there are two sides to that idea. Like it could stop adding parts after inspection but it could also bite you back. For instance if you working on your bot before a match and you had ductape on your bot for example you could get into trouble.

Gives you something to think about! Huh?

[KenWittlief]

you need to keep in mind that the purpose of the competition isnt to see which team can build the best robot

the teams have just gone through a complete engineering design cycle, and now they have their product on hand

and want to see how it performs

so rejecting a teams robot for some technicality effectively would reject ALL the work they did for the last 6 weeks.

you dont want to end up with a team not being able to compete at all.

I think one thing we can do as an organization (all the teams) is to be out there in the pits, and if a team fails inspection and needs significat work to pass, they should be able to find plenty of help from other teams

I know this aways happens eventually, but maybe we need a way to put together the people who need help, and the people who can offer help, a little more effectively.

[Steve W]

Many new teams don't know who to ask. As an announcer last year I attempted to visit all teams. On my way around I met many teams that were having troubles. I jotted them down and as I continued I mentioned needs to other teams. Most teams jumped at the opportunity to help. Lots of students were going around checking out other teams. This is great but if they had purpose like seeking teams in trouble, then .......

[Wetzel]

Originally posted by dddriveman
Personally I think that alot of the inspectors are doing a good job. I have personally see alot of things slip but, they were not intentional or have a basis in any way. I think that we need to give the inspectors more credit at a regional event there are alot of teams that must be inspected. I think a good solution would be to have more inspectors like teams of two inspectors that inspect the robots. That way if one catchs something that the other didn't it can be brought to attention or decisions may be challenged. I like the idea of random inspections but there are two sides to that idea. Like it could stop adding parts after inspection but it could also bite you back. For instance if you working on your bot before a match and you had ductape on your bot for example you could get into trouble.

Gives you something to think about! Huh?

At SVR last year, we had a good group of FIRST veterans, but alot of first time inspectors. Mr Roberts, Sean Roberts dad, was the head inspector and did a good job organizing things. We went in teams of two. I was paried with a adult enginner type from one of the teams that was compeating there. We were able to ask each other for clairification on things, and two eyes are better then one when looking at a robot that you have never seen before. Looking at things that you have never seen before, we relied on the students to explain what this or that mecanism did. One of the things that is often used as an example of what is good about FIRST is the shear number of diffrent designs that teams come up with. That makes inspecting all these different machines that much more difficult.

About teams that wouldn't pass inspection, I would always exlain why, and would often talk through with them a possible solution and if it that would pass after they made the change. In some cases where significant help was needed, I either sent them to a team with the resources to help, or sent someone from a team with resources to them.

FIRST is starting to improve the inspection process. I plan to inspect this season at whatever regionals I attend. I will do a better job then I did last year because I learned a lot about the process last year. I assume it will be the same with others that inspected last year. This will build a better base of inspectors.

The more you know.


Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because knowledge is power.

[Ben Mitchell]

Originally posted by KenWittlief
you need to keep in mind that the purpose of the competition isnt to see which team can build the best robot

the teams have just gone through a complete engineering design cycle, and now they have their product on hand

and want to see how it performs

so rejecting a teams robot for some technicality effectively would reject ALL the work they did for the last 6 weeks.

I disagree with you here: the entire point of having a competition is to see who has built the best robot, and uses their robot with a strategy to win the game.

Rejecting a team due to a technicality WOULD nullify thier machine until it is fixed. That's the point. What's the point of having restricted parts or rules at all if teams could use whatever they wanted and still compete?

The idea of inspectors is to ensure that all the teams competing have valid machines, in order to even the playing field and make sure everyone is following the rules.

Like testing atheletes for steriods.

To use your example: If a company spent 6 weeks working on a product, say a new kind of light switch, and put it on the market without realizing that it cannot be used due to eletrical codes in some states - they lose.

The rules are availible to all, and there is no reason why teams cannot follow them.

[KenWittlief]

The rules are availible to all, and there is no reason why teams cannot follow them.

well there is a reason, thats what this thread is all about

there have been issues.

words dont have meaning, people have meaning - words are only an attempt to communicate

so its very easy for 800 teams to read the rules, and honestly believe different things

whats more, to some people the rules will be clear (they will infer the motive behind the rule) and others will question it - might even ask FIRST questions

Its easy to see how we end up with machines in the Pits that fail inspection

the question then is, what do we do about it?

Is the rule that was broken there for safety? to prevent a team from having an unfair advantage? to ensure good design practice? to make it easier for a ref to identify a robot on the field? It quickly becomes subjective.

which takes us back to page one of this thread :c)

[got2ya3]

"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."

That is one of the best FIRST quotes I have ever heard.

[Aignam]

This thread is over a year old...Please don't revive ancient threads like this---we can't afford any more portal clutter.