New Bumper rule interpretation - straight from the lead inspector

[Gary Dillard]

And Dave wonders why we spend so much time lawyering each detail of the rules...................

Friday at Florida Regional, the lead inspector comes around to every team in the pits who had bumpers and explains that there was a ruling made at FIRST dealing with standard bumper construction that did not get passed down to the inspectors, and any team that was not in compliance had to modify their bumpers before they could compete on Saturday.

Text in R37 Figure 8-1 says, "Aluminum angle attached with wood screws to "clamp" fabric - using only staples and glue may also work but will not likely as secure"

Interpretation - you must have aluminum angle with wood screws to secure the fabric. Staples and glue alone are not adequate.

I had a friendly debate with him about it, but you know the drill - he doesn't make the rules, he just has to enforce them. So we (and several other teams) put the angles on.

Add one more to Paul's list I guess.

[sanddrag]

... (teh straight face)

[ewankoff]

This was not the case in Jersey... Well i guess it wouldn't be a bad thing, it does adds more weight to the bumpers and we still have a couple of pounds left to add to our bumpers

[zkaratekid]

yeah last year we went through two different regionals, LA and BAE, without the aluminum, but later added some one for weight. but our interpretation of the rule is that staples and glue is alright but prob. wont hold the material well enough

[Steve W]

I would have asked him to show me in the rules. I did the same thing in LA when they announced that everyone lifting the robot must be wearing gloves and that the human players had to wear gloves. After searching the rules there was a call to FIRST and then they were told that it was a recommendation not a rule. I can understand why but not the when it was announced.

[AdamHeard]

They announced that human players must wear gloves? that's just absurd, what is the worry there?

[Kims Robot]

They never called the aluminum angle rule on us... we had about a million staples, and our fabric ripped before the stapled area could ever come loose.

And yes, what is with the gloves? We arent allowed to have sharp edges on our robots anyway... and dont get me started on the safety inspectors.... Oh well.

[KTorak]

I can't say we had this issue at GLR. However, most teams only used staples/glue (that I saw). We used staples/glue last year and played ALOT of defense...our bumpers got rips before they came undone.

[Pat Arnold]

Originally Posted by Gary Dillard

And Dave wonders why we spend so much time lawyering each detail of the rules...................

Friday at Florida Regional, the lead inspector comes around to every team in the pits who had bumpers and explains that there was a ruling made at FIRST dealing with standard bumper construction that did not get passed down to the inspectors, and any team that was not in compliance had to modify their bumpers before they could compete on Saturday.

We too were told our bumpers had to be secured with aluminum angle on midday Fri. Although we politely (but rather doggedly) explained our belief that the rules implied this was a recommendation rather than mandatory, Friday night the team stayed late in the pit getting the work done. The fix was simple but the necessity was questioned.

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I would have asked him to show me in the rules. I did the same thing in LA when they announced that everyone lifting the robot must be wearing gloves and that the human players had to wear gloves. After searching the rules there was a call to FIRST and then they were told that it was a recommendation not a rule. I can understand why but not the when it was announced.

I did better than that Steve - I had the page from the rules that I quoted with the picture, and I showed him specifically what it said. He said it didn't matter - the interpretation was passed down to them from FIRST and that was the end of it.

The interpretation of the wording was that "...using only staples and glue may also work but will not likely as secure" means it is not adequate so you have to use aluminum angle. Like I said - lawyering of the wording.

[GBIT]

At GSR we had no problems with our bumpers or having to wear gloves on the field. I was one of the human players but i was never approached about it. i had them but found that the tube sliped more with them.

[galewind]

we found that using 1/8" angle on our bumpers caused us to go over the 15 lb limit, so we had to eliminate some of the angle to make bumper weight. If they're being picky about standard bumpers, I feel that they need to be a bit more specific regarding the building materials.

That being said, we did not adhere to the "Blind fastener" system in figure 8-1 in the manual, yet they accepted them at NJ. We attached small pieces of 1" tubular to the bumper that we then bolted into the frame perpendicularly (our machine frame was built out of 1" tubular). This was actually a lot easier to unfasten than the system they suggest in figure 8-1, that we used last year.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Gary Dillard

And Dave wonders why we spend so much time lawyering each detail of the rules...................

Friday at Florida Regional, the lead inspector comes around to every team in the pits who had bumpers and explains that there was a ruling made at FIRST dealing with standard bumper construction that did not get passed down to the inspectors, and any team that was not in compliance had to modify their bumpers before they could compete on Saturday.

Text in R37 Figure 8-1 says, "Aluminum angle attached with wood screws to "clamp" fabric - using only staples and glue may also work but will not likely as secure"

Interpretation - you must have aluminum angle with wood screws to secure the fabric. Staples and glue alone are not adequate.

I had a friendly debate with him about it, but you know the drill - he doesn't make the rules, he just has to enforce them. So we (and several other teams) put the angles on.

Add one more to Paul's list I guess.

Gary -

I am sorry to hear that this happened. As is also true for the referees, the inspectors have the authority and responsibility to enforce the rules that have been provided. The Lead Inspector has the authority to decide whether a particular robot design, device, or configuration is in compliance with the rules that have been given. They do NOT have the authority to change the existing rules or make up new ones.

There is a difference between obsessively "lawyering" the existing rules that have been provided to all FIRST teams, and respectfully challenging someone that has created a new rule on the spot and expects everyone at an event to respond. The provided rules define a set of standards across the entire FRC program upon which each team an event participant (including the inspectors) should be able to rely. There is no provision for "local customizing" or "regional interpretation" of the rules.

-dave

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by dlavery

They do NOT have the authority to change the existing rules or make up new ones.

There is a difference between obsessively "lawyering" the existing rules that have been provided to all FIRST teams, and respectfully challenging someone that has created a new rule on the spot and expects everyone at an event to respond. .... There is no provision for "local customizing" or "regional interpretation" of the rules.

-dave

As the lead inspector explained it to me, this exact interpretation was specifically passed down to him from FIRST; he was very nice about it, he didn't say that he agreed or disagreed with it, and I certainly didn't get the impression that he made it up himself. Hopefully it was just a miscommunication.

[Steve W]

We had an issue here in Socal where they said we had to wear gloves when moving the robot and the HP had to use them when throwing the tubes on the field. I politely ask (yes I was nice) them to show me the rule. When they were not able to they called back to FIRST and the answer came back that it was a recommendation and not a rule. It seems that there was a little miscommunication that was straightened out. I found that everyone here in SoCal were great to work with if you asked nicely. There will always be misunderstandings and that is OK as long as people are willing to check with the powers that be to get final decisions.