Concerning Whistleblowing

[GaryVoshol]

Volunteering at GLR and Detroit, I saw a variety of ways that inspection was handled. Please don't think this is criticism. It is impossible for any inspector to completely memorize all the rules. Some things inevitably get overlooked. Weight and size are easy to measure. It takes a long time for a complete inspection to verify no illegal parts and safety. I think the inspectors do an admirable job - one I have absolutely no ability or desire to try.

Two items were the new things this year - bumpers and flag holders. Partway through the build season Q&A made a ruling that we couldn't swiss-cheese the flag holder tube, and in an update we were told because some teams might take it too far. Also every tube had to have a bottom cap even if it wasn't needed to keep the flag in the tube. Our robot was called for not having a bottom cap - because the tube rested on a horizontal frame cross-member that just happened to be at the correct height. We stuck a cap on it. Later I saw a robot with a tube without any cap (maybe it fell off post-inspection, I don't know) so that the flagpole went completely through the tube until the flag material caught on top.

I saw side bumpers that had the lower corners cut at an angle - no doubt to facilitate getting on the ramp. As far as I know, it was allowed to compete that way. However at Detroit, one robot was pulled aside to have the bumper height measured. The front bumper was mounted too high (outside the 2.5" to 8.5" bumper zone) and they had to correct it.

I can understand the frustration of teams that meet the rules, seeing teams that "get away" with things. Does it matter, does it give an advantage? In the case of mis-shaped bumpers I'd say it does, because the team is operating outside the established parameters in order to accomplish a game task. In the case of a tube without an end cap, it gives no advantage, but if it causes the flag to not be displayed properly, it does matter. In the case of extra motors, there obviously is an operational advantage. In the case of incorrect wiring, there is a safety issue.

We shouldn't be about pointing out things to inspectors "just because" we see they are wrong. The inspectors correctly don't play the "gotcha" game; neither should we. If we see an obvious safety issue, we should point it out to the team in a non-threatening manner; if they don't correct it then we should approach an inspector.

I don't know how to handle the safe but outside rules issues. We're not to be tattle-tales. But teams that made compromises in order to abide by the rules should not be disadvantaged when other teams do not make those same compromises.