Need for Inspections Rules Changes

[NickE]

Originally Posted by IndySam

And Jenny sometimes teams won't take your help.

This is a huge issue. This year at one of our regionals, there was a team whose drivebase was powered by 5 window motors. They were continuously offered help by our team as well as many other successful veteran teams. They continuously refused help, even yelling at us once for bothering them, saying that "They had worked so hard on their design that they didn't want to change it", even if it meant not competing. They were blaming FIRST for the rules they neglected to read.

Later we found out that we were allied with them in one of our first matches. They must have had good luck, for they were ranked #1 at the end of friday without ever going on the field...

If i remember correctly, they were not rookies.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by NickE

This is a huge issue. This year at one of our regionals, there was a team whose drivebase was powered by 5 window motors.

Nick,
Did you inform the LRI? They are the ones who can point out flaws and suggest ways/teams to modify. LRIs do not want any team to sit on the sidelines for any reason that can be helped.

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Partial inspections take longer overall than a full, one visit, inspection. A request for a partial indicates the team is not ready to be inspected.

I defer to your wisdom and experience on this.

Partial inspections have been done at every regional I've been to (especially with sizing and weight), but perhaps this needs to be clarified and changed this year.

[johnr]

This is a huge issue. This year at one of our regionals, there was a team whose drivebase was powered by 5 window motors. They were continuously offered help by our team as well as many other successful veteran teams. They continuously refused help, even yelling at us once for bothering them, saying that "They had worked so hard on their design that they didn't want to change it", even if it meant not competing. They were blaming FIRST for the rules they neglected to read.

Later we found out that we were allied with them in one of our first matches. They must have had good luck, for they were ranked #1 at the end of friday without ever going on the field...

If i remember correctly, they were not rookies.

I would really like to hear more about this event. If this team choose to not change anything shouldn't they have been removed from the competition?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by johnr

I would really like to hear more about this event. If this team choose to not change anything shouldn't they have been removed from the competition?

If they don't pass inspection, their robot will not be allowed onto the field. There isn't really a way to remove the team from the competition, barring an extraordinary lack of GP on their part, at least according to the rules.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Nick,
Did you inform the LRI? They are the ones who can point out flaws and suggest ways/teams to modify. LRIs do not want any team to sit on the sidelines for any reason that can be helped.

Nick is referring to a team (who I won't identify) participating in the Las Vegas Regional. The inspectors (including the LRI) all tried to convince the team to change the drive system in order to come into compliance. Several teams (including ours) offered suggestions, spare parts, or whatever to try to help them. Even with the knowledge that their illegal robot would not be allowed on the field (and it wasn't), this team had voted to not change their "very cool" design and the mentor was not going to override their vote. This was very frustrating to inspectors and other teams alike, but it was their choice.

In spite of their robot not being on the field for their matches (i.e. human player only), they remained in first place until Sat morning. An inexperienced team actually picked them during alliance selections (because they were on top of the "available" list on the audience screen). As I recall, they were ultimately replaced by a back-up robot in the quarterfinal matches.

[Mark McLeod]

I suppose an obvious change to make inspections more managable is to place a cap on the number of teams at an event.

Like what Michigan has done with limiting district events to 40 teams. If a region has to accommodate more teams due to team density, then split them over a double weekend, or do a split event like Minnesota (although the latter doubles the volunteers and space necessary).

Traditionally, Regional Planning Committees look at how to pack more teams into a venue as the number of local teams gradually increases. A venue that eventually allows 60+ teams though without doubling the fields and volunteers, such as inspectors, both overloads the inspectors and decreases the number of matches possible under a traditional schedule.

It's cheaper of course for a committee to pack more teams in through creative rearrangement of existing space then to rent a venue twice or find a larger more expensive place. But sooner or later a practical limit is reached and that's when we get teams finishing inspection on Friday morning and 7 matches per event.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

I suppose an obvious change to make inspections more managable is to place a cap on the number of teams at an event.

I think this is how the problem will be resolved, eventually.

When FIRST has completed its transition to a three-tier (District >> Regional >> Super-Regional >> Championship) qualifying model, we will probably have about ten thousand teams competing in 500 districts, each with a field of about 40 teams -- this assumes each team competes at its own 'home' district event and travels to another. At events for which teams must qualify based on performance at the district level, the number of teams will be larger, and the inspection process should be less time-consuming.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

<snip>

I propose, Each team provide 1 mentor who will get trained prior to the event and take an online test, which certifies them to give a "first pass" inspection. When the team checks in there is also a badge in the packet for that mentor/inspector. During the day when a team is ready to start the inspection process they find one of these people form another team and they can do it. This could take care of about 90% of the inspection. Then you could have a small number of inspectors/lead inspectors do a 2nd pass or follow up to finish the process. They could also spot check any of the previous work at that time and if wrong do a full inspection.

<snip>

Expanding on Greg's idea, I'd like to see FIRST require each team to have at least one student member pass an on-line robot rules test by ship date. This student could be interviewed by the inspector at the event. This practice could help avoid extensive rework of robots at events due to lack of the teams' familiarity with the rules.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

Expanding on Greg's idea, I'd like to see FIRST require each team to have at least one student member pass an on-line robot rules test by ship date. This student could be interviewed by the inspector at the event. This practice could help avoid extensive rework of robots at events due to lack of the teams' familiarity with the rules.

That's definitely something I'd be all for. Putting some more responsibility on the students is a great idea, you definitely learn a lot more through this method as well.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

Expanding on Greg's idea, I'd like to see FIRST require each team to have at least one student member pass an on-line robot rules test by ship date. This student could be interviewed by the inspector at the event. This practice could help avoid extensive rework of robots at events due to lack of the teams' familiarity with the rules.

I like this a lot, but I would move it up a few weeks. Require a student to pass a test on the rules by week 3 or 4. This gives the team plenty of time to recognize and correct aspects of their design that may go against the rules.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

I like this a lot, but I would move it up a few weeks. Require a student to pass a test on the rules by week 3 or 4. This gives the team plenty of time to recognize and correct aspects of their design that may go against the rules.

It would also probably avoid a lot of those "obvious" errors made by many teams *such as the bumper rules from 09* Sooo, where do we suggest such things?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

It would also probably avoid a lot of those "obvious" errors made by many teams *such as the bumper rules from 09* Sooo, where do we suggest such things?

You could always try the GDC members on CD, or Bill's Blog, or just contacting FRC directly.

One thing on the test, though... it needs to include the Q&A up to that point. Not the minor, "Read the manual" type of Q&A, but the major ones (bumpers again...). That way, they know how a given rule is supposed to be interpreted.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

Expanding on Greg's idea, I'd like to see FIRST require each team to have at least one student member pass an on-line robot rules test by ship date. This student could be interviewed by the inspector at the event. This practice could help avoid extensive rework of robots at events due to lack of the teams' familiarity with the rules.

I have to disagree on this.

It is not FIRSTs job to ensure that all teams understand the rules.

It is each teams job to comply with all of FIRSTs rules.

Thus the responsibility is on the teams to comply. Teaching responsibility is something that every team should be doing.

I can hear it now, "But that wasn't on the test!".

[Akash Rastogi]

[i]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I have to disagree on this.

It is not FIRSTs job to ensure that all teams understand the rules.

It is each teams job to comply with all of FIRSTs rules.

Thus the responsibility is on the teams to comply. Teaching responsibility is something that every team should be doing.

I can hear it now, "But that wasn't on the test!".

But something similar to this would transition that should to a must. At least for some things I think a requirement on knowledge must be met. Such as bumper rules, placement of lights, wire gauges, placement of main breakers, etc..

Its not FIRST's job to do this, but if certain things are made a requirement to know, then the teams would take more responsibility for it. With the requirement of passing a test they would also have the incentive of actually using BB, Q&A, and any other documentation available.