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

[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.

[Andy A.]

I'm a big fan of limited official rulings, particularly in regards to team operations, by FIRST. I'm glad they've stated that them selves.

As for teams offering to drive for other teams or loan team members in extreme cases, like emergencies or to keep religious obligations, I am in favor of event staff making the call. The people on the ground are the ones who can best weigh the implications and decide if something is being done out of GP or not. There are occasions were it is appropriate and when it is not, and there is no way to foresee which is which before hand. It's a decision best left to the referee staff on an as needed basis.

-Andy A.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

I'm a big fan of limited official rulings, particularly in regards to team operations, by FIRST. I'm glad they've stated that them selves.

As for teams offering to drive for other teams or loan team members in extreme cases, like emergencies or to keep religious obligations, I am in favor of event staff making the call. The people on the ground are the ones who can best weigh the implications and decide if something is being done out of GP or not. There are occasions were it is appropriate and when it is not, and there is no way to foresee which is which before hand. It's a decision best left to the referee staff on an as needed basis.

-Andy A.

Oh, how I so completely agree with you.

While I like the idea of team members only being on one team, I believe that in the siprit of gracious professionalism we should allow for exceptions on a case-by-case situation, with the head referee of that regional as the final arbitrator. This should satisfy both the 'conflict-of-interest' and 'gracious professionalism' arguments.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

While I like the idea of team members only being on one team, I believe that in the siprit of gracious professionalism we should allow for exceptions on a case-by-case situation, with the head referee of that regional as the final arbitrator. This should satisfy both the 'conflict-of-interest' and 'gracious professionalism' arguments.

Your point is well-taken, however your choice of the head referee as the final arbiter might pose a problem. After all, it's not a question of gameplay, except in the specific situation where the team members in question act for both teams as part of their drive teams. Also, it's not a "rule", but rather a decree by FIRST (which can be looked upon as a condition of participation, which is something usually addressed by event organizing staff). Absent a rule (in "The Game" or "The Tournament") which covers this situation, there's no game-related penalty available to the officials (and officials rightly don't want to be accused of making up a penalty).

I think you could easily make a case that it's the regional director's call, just as it might be if a team refused to extinguish open flames in the pit, or was creating a disturbance in the stands.

Since regional directors and head referees occasionally disagree, it would be wise to establish who has the final word.

[Andy A.]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Since regional directors and head referees occasionally disagree, it would be wise to establish who has the final word.

You're right. FIRST should decide who makes the call, and that should be a person who's responsibilities best fit the task. The director is about as good a choice as I can think of. I only thought of the Head Ref because thats often the most authoritative person readily apparent to team members. I've never spoken to or always been aware of who the regional director is, but the head ref is always by the field and can always be flagged down. The head ref can also be depended on to know the rules well.

-Andy A.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

OK, I'll bite.

What is so bad about a student being a member of two teams? Take the driver position out of the equation. If a student is able to be part of two teams (two teams at one school is the likely scenario, but I can think of situations where a student could have the opportunity to be on two teams at separate schools), why specifically is this "bad"? Wouldn't the student have the opportunity for twice the inspiration? What am I missing?

We have mentors that are members of multiple teams (the Martian mentors even have dual shirts!) - is FIRST going to disallow this in the future?

I suppose that the logistics of being a full fledged member of two teams might be pretty difficult unless those two teams act as one in all aspects - robot design, scouting, etc (animation, chairman's, and other types of activities would be the only distinct areas). But what if a team suddenly had a lot of extra cash and decided that they wanted to enter two robots themselves? To do so, a new team has to be created. This rule would prevent this unless they are able to come up with 3 new students (for a new drive team) - which shouldn't be hard, but work with me on this.

I'm not saying I disagree with the rule....I'm just wondering why it has to be a rule in the first place.

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by EricH

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

There are no "long-dead horses" on Chief Delphi, only "sleeping" ones. This one appears about ready to awaken.