**FIRST EMAIL**/Multiple Teams at One School

[Beth Sweet]

Wow, some interesting clarifications! Kudos to FIRST for increased communication on issues that are important to teams!

[Jimmy Cao]

Sorry if i am misunderstood, but did this change any old rules? Or was it just clearly defining some guidelines?

I do not recall any rules limiting team collaboration.

Thank you,

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Lostmage333

Sorry if i am misunderstood, but did this change any old rules? Or was it just clearly defining some guidelines?

I do not recall any rules limiting team collaboration.

Thank you,

The only potential new rule I see here is that students cannot be on multiple teams. I don't recall this specifically being disallowed before.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

The only potential new rule I see here is that students cannot be on multiple teams. I don't recall this specifically being disallowed before.

Makes sense. If it wasn't explicitly stated before, it should have been.

Otherwise you could have someone from another team drive or operate your robot.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Cory

Makes sense. If it wasn't explicitly stated before, it should have been.

Otherwise you could have someone from another team drive or operate your robot.

...which, alongside using your alliances time-outs on behalf of your competitors, is one of the most frequent things we see lauded by this community as exemplary gracious professionalism. It's not quite commonplace, but I can recall more than a few instances of teams being unable to compete for some reason or another and having another group step in and take the reigns.

It's interesting that those two things are now against the rules -- intentionally or otherwise.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

...which, alongside using your alliances time-outs on behalf of your competitors, is one of the most frequent things we see lauded by this community as exemplary gracious professionalism. It's not quite commonplace, but I can recall more than a few instances of teams being unable to compete for some reason or another and having another group step in and take the reigns.

It's interesting that those two things are now against the rules -- intentionally or otherwise.

I understand that point, and I almost put a sidenote into my post regarding an issue where I know it happened before--in 2003 (I think? may have been 04) at SVR a Jewish school could not operate it's robot on Saturday due to the Sabbath. Members from other teams stepped in and became their driveteam for the day.

Things like that are great. I'm all for them.

My point was that there are situations in which it can be bad. Imagine two teams collaborating, either via long distance, or being at the same school. One team has an awesome driver. The other driver is not so good. Without this rule, Driver A could drive Team B's robot, and his or her own robot. That isn't fair.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Cory

I understand that point, and I almost put a sidenote into my post regarding an issue where I know it happened before--in 2003 (I think? may have been 04) at SVR a Jewish school could not operate it's robot on Saturday due to the Sabbath. Members from other teams stepped in and became their driveteam for the day.

Things like that are great. I'm all for them.

My point was that there are situations in which it can be bad. Imagine two teams collaborating, either via long distance, or being at the same school. One team has an awesome driver. The other driver is not so good. Without this rule, Driver A could driver Team B's robot, and his or her own robot. That isn't fair.

Yep. I think, more than anything else, it's an example of what sort of situations FIRST gets themselves into by not thinking about how far reaching some of what they say can be. Of course, all of this is based on the speculation that FIRST wants teams helping one another out at any cost -- which may not be the case.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

...which, alongside using your alliances time-outs on behalf of your competitors, is one of the most frequent things we see lauded by this community as exemplary gracious professionalism. It's not quite commonplace, but I can recall more than a few instances of teams being unable to compete for some reason or another and having another group step in and take the reigns.

It's interesting that those two things are now against the rules -- intentionally or otherwise.

It also happened at the Championship this past year with 177...
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=56906

I'd like to think this is entirely unintentional, but under the new rule, this would not be allowed.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

It also happened at the Championship this past year with 177...
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=56906

I'd like to think this is entirely unintentional, but under the new rule, this would not be allowed.

Team 228 won the Sportsmanship Award at the 2007 UTC Connecticut Regional for repairing and driving robots for some of the other teams who had to return home due to the huge blizzard during the regional and were unable to continue competing.

Personally, I was also asked at both the UTC Regional and the Championships in 2007 if I was available to be one of the backup drivers for 177 if they needed it.

Because of the situations like these, I think FIRST should further clarify this new rule about limiting a student to only being a member of one team. Under special circumstances where one team is unable (for reasons beyond their control) have a drive team, having a substitute drive team should be allowed.

Perhaps this can even be clarified by limiting all 'non-team-member' students on the drive team to a maximum of two or three matches; this way, one team cannot use another team's drivers for an entire competition.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

...which, alongside using your alliances time-outs on behalf of your competitors,

This was never against the rules. What could not be done was back-to-back time outs. Red could always use their time-out for any reason, except if Blue had just used theirs.

I can recall more than a few instances of teams being unable to compete for some reason or another and having another group step in and take the reigns.

It's interesting that those two things are now against the rules -- intentionally or otherwise.

Previously it was implied, but not stated outright, that there could not be substitutes from other teams driving your robot. The definition from game rules is

DRIVER: a pre-college student team member responsible for operating and controlling the
ROBOT. There are two DRIVERS per TEAM.

(emphasis mine) The new rule makes it explicit. Whether that's good or bad, I'm not sure. I think it's a case of making a rule to cover a situation - partner teams with co-designed robots, using one set of drivers. But it happens to now disallow an opportunity for gracious professionalism and teamwork (in the broader sense of all FIRST being a team).

This does bring up a question of what it means to be a member of a team. Each team has their own process of going about it. There is no "registration" such as you'd find in a sports league. The only thing close to it is the disclosure form you turn in at a competition, which has your team number on it. Can you switch from one team to another between weeks 1 and 3 of regionals?

[EricH]

Perhaps (once the Q&A forums are open) someone should ask about emergency drive team substitution. For example, "Team A is not able to muster enough people to drive for a short time during a regional due to unforseen circumstances. Teams B and C have spare people. Is Team A allowed to ask Team B and/or Team C for drivers until Team A has enough people present to form a drive team?" (Note: this means that you can't plan to have a short team show up and get help; only in case of something like the situations above can you request the help. Also, if I were FIRST and thinking clearly, I would give a person at the event to contact about who is driving the robot. I would also require that as many as possible be members of the team requesting the extra help.)

If the answer is "No," then there may be cases of good offensive teams being forced to play defense for a time. If the answer is "Yes," then all is well.

[RoboMom]

I agree that "the emergency drive team substitution" should be brought up in the Q & A. Like at UTC, Chesapeake had school systems recalling teams late Friday morning due to a fun mix of snow and ice. It was wonderful to watch the quick problem solving and the gracious professionalism that went on, as teams stepped in drive robots for teams that had to get back on the bus.

[Olde Bill]

Doesn't 'over-sharing' of design (identical robots ... ) reduce the inventive/imaginative aspect and learning opportunities which I see as key elements of FIRST? Seasoned teams mentoring rookie team is fantastic but isn't there a limit to the amount of allowed collaboration to maintain a reasonably level playing field?
If memory serves me, at one time, parts manufactured for teams (material & labour) had to be included in the cost. If a student team member was there to watch and learn the labour cost could be excluded. I can appreciate that in some situations (time, location, safety, ...) it is not possible for a student to be present, but, isn't simply displaying the 'manufacturer' as a sponsor a little overboard? Is this not similar to the COTS rule where (purchased) parts must be off-the-shelf and available to all teams?

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Olde Bill

Doesn't 'over-sharing' of design (identical robots ... ) reduce the inventive/imaginative aspect and learning opportunities which I see as key elements of FIRST?

Not according to the judges of the 2007 Palmetto Regional. (1369's efforts with 1902, who were in Las Vegas at the time, received the Judges' Award for their approach to the collaboration, which resulted in a robot completed two weeks early. Nobody ever said that getting done early was bad--there is far more you can learn after fabrication is complete.)

Seasoned teams mentoring rookie team is fantastic but isn't there a limit to the amount of allowed collaboration to maintain a reasonably level playing field?

Not any year that I have been involved in FRC.

If memory serves me, at one time, parts manufactured for teams (material & labour) had to be included in the cost. If a student team member was there to watch and learn the labour cost could be excluded.

Not quite. From the 2007 manual:

Originally Posted by Section 8.3.4.4

The cost of raw material obtained by a team + the cost of non-team labor expended to have the material processed further. Labor provided by team members and/or by a recognized team sponsor whose employees are members of the team does not have to be included. Note: it is in the best interests of the teams and FIRST to form relationships with as many organizations as possible. Teams are encouraged to be expansive in recruiting and including organizations in their team, as that exposes more people and organizations to FIRST. Recognizing supporting companies as sponsors of, and members in, the team is encouraged - even if the involvement of the sponsor is solely through the donation of fabrication labor.

Example: A team purchases steel bar stock for $10.00 and has it machined by a local machine shop. The machine shop is not considered a team sponsor, but donates two hours of expended labor anyway. The team must include the estimated normal cost of the labor as if it were paid to the machine shop, and add it to the $10.00.

oExample: A team purchases steel bar stock for $10.00 and has it machined by a local machine shop that is a recognized sponsor of the team. The machinists are considered members of the team, so their labor costs do not apply. The total applicable cost for the part would be $10.00.

I can appreciate that in some situations (time, location, safety, ...) it is not possible for a student to be present, but, isn't simply displaying the 'manufacturer' as a sponsor a little overboard? Is this not similar to the COTS rule where (purchased) parts must be off-the-shelf and available to all teams?

I don't quite follow this one, so I can't quite rebut. Perhaps you could clarify things a bit?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Olde Bill

Doesn't 'over-sharing' of design (identical robots ... ) reduce the inventive/imaginative aspect and learning opportunities which I see as key elements of FIRST? Seasoned teams mentoring rookie team is fantastic but isn't there a limit to the amount of allowed collaboration to maintain a reasonably level playing field?

If you would like to start a collaboration debate, search first. It's a long-dead horse.

Originally Posted by Olde Bill

If memory serves me, at one time, parts manufactured for teams (material & labour) had to be included in the cost. If a student team member was there to watch and learn the labour cost could be excluded.

There is no requirement that students even be involved in fabrication. IN THEORY (not that I reccommend this; in fact, I would call FIRST's official attention to this if I became aware of a confirmed case), it is possible for the students not to see the robot (or design) until Thursday of their first regional. (I don't know of a single case of this happening.)

Originally Posted by Olde Bill

I can appreciate that in some situations (time, location, safety, ...) it is not possible for a student to be present, but, isn't simply displaying the 'manufacturer' as a sponsor a little overboard? Is this not similar to the COTS rule where (purchased) parts must be off-the-shelf and available to all teams?

If a part isn't COTS, COTS rules don't apply. Custom part rules do. Again, if the team chooses to count the maker of a part as a sponsor and to do so does not violate team sponsorship guidelines (or FIRST sponsorship guidelines), I see no problem with not involving students, although if possible students should be involved.