Regional Inconsistencies

[Andy Baker]

FIRST has just completed running 17 Regional events in the short span of 5 weekends. My hat is off to FIRST, the Regional Coordinators, and all of the volunteers. Everyone put their heart and soul into these Regionals and did an awesome job.

Since there were sooo many different people running these things in such a short amount of time (many at the same time)... there were some inconsistencies. While I usually save constructive criticism to the off-season, we are all on the verge of the Championships. I assume that FIRST is gonna re-convene over the next few weeks, compare notes, and get consistent on some of their minor differences so that all of the fields at Epcot are run the same way.

So... they could use our help. I have seen some inconsistencies, but I've only been at 4 Regionals (2 competing, 1 spectating and 1 volunteering). Here's what I've seen:

1. "Under the Goal" rule.
Some regionals have DQed teams for purposely deplying parts of their robot under the goal (an extension deploying under the goal), while other regionals have let this happen as long as the goal is not interacted with or entangled with. For instance, on the west coast, teams were allowed to deploy under the goal as long as they were not lifting the goal or not entangled with the goal, but in the East teams were DQed for this.

2. "Entaglement" rule.
This was the toughest to judge and be consistent on. I'm sure that every regional was slightly different, from the initial bombshell fell during the first weekend. I think that we can all deal with this, but it would be nice for FIRST to define this better. In LA, one match happened where a robot entangled itself AND their alliance partner... but since the entanglement stayed within the alliance, they were not DQed... was this right? I think so, but I'm not sure. Also... some people think that entanglement can only be in the wheels. If this was the case, then teams would be "netting" their opponents. It would be nice for some clarity before the Championships.

3. "Elimination round second match... who's gotta play?"
OK, if an alliance wins their first match of an elimination round, then the team who sat out has to play the next match (that's easy), but what about the losing alliance? During some regionals, teams were allowed to keep the same two teams out there for the alliance who lost the first match, but during other regionals, they were forced to switch also. This may sound trivial, but who plays which match in the finals is important.

There may be other issues... can you think of any others?

Hopefully, first will clarify these inconsistencies. It would be nice to get clarity before we get down there, but that may not happen. They may most likely give us this clarity during the "driver's meeting" on the first day of the Championships. We shall see.

Andy B.