Rules - to follow or not to follow, that is the question

[Radical Pi]

I'd like to bring up G46 from this year as an example of this. At FLR (pre update 16) there was a fair number of bots that would get multiple G46 penalties in one match because they didn't have have anything to prevent it from happening. And then there were the teams that had paid attention to the rule and never got the penalty (or only in very unlikely situations) that were rewarded with better scores. Then update 16 is released and it nearly makes this legal as long as you are trying to get rid of it. I feel like if any modification was needed, it should have not protected teams that barely stopped the ball from entering.

[Cory]

The bumper color thing really bothered me. There was one team I saw with black bumpers. Black is clearly neither blue, nor red. They also had similarly dark numbers painted on them.

[Mr. Van]

So, what happens when the rules change? In mid season?

For me, I believe the issue became most obvious this year with the 3" ball penetration rule.

Many teams that designed high chassis robots to go over the bump had difficulty keeping balls out from under them. Instead of having to make a choice based on their design (penalties vs. bump traversing) these teams found their problem solved - by a rule change. (In most of these cases, a bar could have been placed below the chassis that would keep a ball from going under the robot, but it would have prevented bump traversing.)

The update (after week 1) made it completely legal to DRIVE OVER A BALL. In fact, many teams that had worked (to varying degrees of success) at keeping balls from going under their robots removed any devices that were designed to do this at subsequent regionals.

Essentially teams that managed to successfully overcome the challenge of going over the bump without allowing balls to go under their robot found that their efforts were wasted. In fact, their design may now be at a disadvantage because they can't simply drive over a ball that may be in their way preventing a maneuver.

There were solutions to the bump vs. 3" problem with the rules as written and many teams did develop and execute these solutions. Why would FIRST seem to say "this problem is too hard, so we're going to remove it from the challenge"?

So, because so many teams ignored a rule (or were unsuccessful in following it) FIRST said it was going to modify the rule.

This issue is of course complicated by selective enforcement of rules at events.

-Mr. Van
Robodox

[ChuckDickerson]

FIRST is supposed to be a microcosm of the real world so read the “rules” more like “customer design specifications”. If a customer asks you to build a part that must fit in a particular space then it must fit in that space. If it has to weigh no more than so much it has to weigh no more than that, period. The sizing box and scale are the easy ones but every year plenty of teams still show up at competition that don’t fit and are over weight. That won’t fly in the real world. You can’t deliver a part to a customer and say “Yeah, we know it doesn’t fit and is too heavy but it’s close so will you still pay us?”

Read every single word of the “customer design specifications” carefully and fully understand them before you start designing and building anything. Don’t assume that new customer’s design specifications (this year’s “rules”) are the same as the last customer’s needs (last years “rules”) even if the customer is the same and they are asking you to build a similar part (let’s say bumpers to continue this example). If everyone would do this then the inspector’s job would be easy and there really should be no need for inspectors by the time you get to the Championships. Trust me the inspectors job is anything but easy and there are PLENTY of robots at the Championships that somehow passed inspection at one or often times more than one regional but aren’t legal when they uncrate at the big show. If an inspector lets you slide on this rule or that rule at your early regional(s) they aren’t doing you or any or your future alliance partners any favors because sooner or later you and some random alliance partners are going to pay the price when you don’t make a match due to not passing inspection further down the road.

We all know there are always rules that don’t exactly make any competitive difference like the “only team numbers on the bumpers rule” but those are the customer design specifications so that should be the way they are done. The FIRST GDC spent almost 3 pages on the bumpers for a reason. They wanted them a certain way so we should all build them as such. It is perfectly clear at the inspection station which teams actually read the bumper rules and included them I their early design process and which teams left them as a complete after thought and just slapped something on there whether or not it was even close to being legal. Folks, I’m pretty sure bumpers are here to stay. Include them in your design process from the beginning. Don’t leave them as a week 6 afterthought. The number one problem delaying the inspection process this year was bumpers.

Wire color also comes to mind as something that on an individual robot basis probably makes no difference, however, if the customer design specifications require purple and yellow wire you better not deliver a part with pink and green wire or you won’t get paid.

Does it really matter if your school name/organization and sponsor logos aren’t proudly displayed on your machine? Probably not in terms of field play but besides the fact that we should all be proud of our teams and schools and we owe it to our sponsors the recognize them the customer design specifications call for them to be displayed on the robot so, yep, they better be there. Consider that some of the rules that we think are “useless” and “silly” may just be sprinkled in among the others by the GDC to keep us on our toes.

I HIGHLY recommend that more experienced team mentors follow Al’s advice and volunteer next year as inspectors at the competitions. You will gain tremendous insight into the process and it can really only help your own team in the long run to have an experienced inspector mentoring your team. They will be forced to know and follow the rules to the letter. It also elevates the whole level of play when all teams are held to the same high standards.

Teams should not fear the inspectors and the inspection process. They should welcome it and enjoy it as if they are showing of their creation to someone who is truly interested in the intricate details of how it works. Teams should build their machines in HOPES of being the first one inspected, as the model to follow, and as the machine used to train all the rookie inspectors on what it looks like when the rules are followed to the letter. The inspectors are your friends, not the bad guys. Also keep in mind that if you are having problems don’t be afraid to go to the inspectors for help. They will do their best to get you connected to whatever resource you are in need of to solve your problem.

So finally, YES, read the rules, know the rules and then follow the rules to the letter. If you see something at a competition that you feel doesn’t follow the rules and especially if it is giving another team an unfair advantage on the field it is your right to point it out to the LRI. Be polite, not petty and trite, and have a copy of the specific rule handy if possible. The inspectors always want to see all the teams make their matches but ultimately it is their job to enforce the rules fairly and evenly as best as they can. Please keep in mind though that teams have weeks to design and build their machines where inspectors have mere minutes to try to catch any infraction on dozens of machines they have never seen before. Everyone makes mistakes.

[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

However, it gets interesting when we go to competitions and we very clearly see robots (even by very well known and admired teams) that violate this rule. ...

So...when can you ignore a rule? When should you say something? What is the general consensus?

I just realized when re-reading the original post, that because of the fact that the thread title touched a nerve for me with one of my rules-related complaints, I posted a lengthy follow-up about rules enforcement, but went a bit off-topic.

Upon re-reading the original posting, it seems the original poster may have instead been seeking the collective opinion of CD readers of what a team should do when they observe another team who is violating a rule.

If that is the correct intent of the original poster's question, then that is a *hard* question. There are lots of aspects to the matter.

In general, if I see another team committing a rule violation, I would like for my first action to be to inform the other team of the violation in case they are unaware that they are doing anything wrong. For most rule violations in FIRST, I think the offending team simply being unaware of the problem is the most common issue. Helping to show the offending team that they are breaking a rule is probably sufficient in the majority of the cases. Usually, after the team realizes they are violating a rule, they'll work on their own to remedy the problem.

For teams that we have an ongoing familiarity or relationship with, letting them know that they are breaking a rule is relatively easy and not too uncomfortable. However, for teams one doesn't know, this can be a very awkward situation -- it's not easy to go up to somebody on a team that you've never talked to before and say something like "Hi, I'm Ken Streeter from team 1519. While watching your robot in the last match, I saw that you're regularly possessing two balls, but that's against the rules." Such a conversation isn't the easiest of ways to get to meet somebody! I don't think I've ever had to do that in FIRST before, so I can't provide much practical experience. However, I think that we do have a responsibility to let teams know when they have unintentionally broken the rules.

The really complicated issue comes up when you do let the team know that they are breaking the rules, but they aren't doing anything about it. Instead of fixing the problem, they either deny that they are breaking the rule or instead simply let the problem persist. I'm curious to hear what others have to advise about such circumstances...

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter

The really complicated issue comes up when you do let the team know that they are breaking the rules, but they aren't doing anything about it. Instead of fixing the problem, they either deny that they are breaking the rule or instead simply let the problem persist. I'm curious to hear what others have to advise about such circumstances...

Go directly to the Head Ref or LRI as appropriate. By approaching the team first you have given them a chance to correct an accidental violation. Not fixing this issue either means that they do not agree with you that they are in violation or they have chosen to intentionally violate the rules which is cheating. In either case the involvement of an official is the appropriate action.

The rules are there to keep the playing field level and by not informing the appropriate officials about severe violations, you are not only doing a disservice to your team but to others as well. If the issue has been given a pass for whatever reason (eg. the 488 bumpers discussed above) the Head Ref or LRI should know this and be able to inform you and explain.

One thing to keep in mind is be sure that the team is actually in violation of the rule. If you think the conversation is awkward when the team is in violation of the rule it's at least 5 times more awkward for both parties when you're wrong.

[Tristan Lall]

I have to admit...when I saw the thumbnail of that robot in CD-Media, my first thought was 'illegal bumpers...not again'. Plenty of other robots managed to violate various tenets of that bumper rule, so 488 is in good company.

One of the things you get to see as an inspector—that perhaps isn't totally evident when the GDC is writing the rules, or when the teams are building the robots—is the level of hardship involved in correcting some rules violations.

The classic example of a devastating violation is an oversized robot: if you built it 38.25 inches long, the amount of work required to pass inspection will generally be vast. In 488's case, there was much less work required. Depending on the particulars of the situation, the inspector has to decide what to pass, and what to fail.

There are a lot of schools of thought with regard to this issue. Some say that if it doesn't give the team an advantage on the field, it should be overlooked. I'd say there's a whole lot more to it than that. On one level, as noted above, your participation in FRC is implicit acceptance of the rules in the book—you can't ignore what you don't like. (If you could expect to get away with violations, there would be an incentive to badger the inspectors hoping for leniency through exasperation. That can't be suborned.) Although I can conceive of some extenuating circumstances where this might not be appropriate, for the vast majority of situations, if you aren't complying with an explicit provision of the rules, you need to fix it.

That of course raises the question: when do you have to fix it? (Right now, even if you have a match in 5 minutes? After your next match? Tomorrow? Next event?) One of the objectives of the volunteer corps at an event is to make sure every team competes. To what extent can an inspector bend a rule, or suspend it temporarily, in order to achieve another important objective? It's not especially clear. FIRST hasn't provided much official guidance on this issue, instead preferring, I believe, to let individual lead inspectors make rulings within the parameters of their experience and judgment. It's not the most consistent outcome, but it does have the advantage of flexibility. Despite this, I understand completely the issue that many teams have with this—though most are too polite to admit it: why did that other team get away with something obviously illegal?

The trouble with the "pity pass" is that it allows teams to expend dramatically less resources than the other, more conscientious teams. If you get away with a bumper violation (let's say the much-reviled full support of bumpers clause), it means that you now have time to fix the autonomous mode, or watch an opponent's match, or run to the concessions to get lunch. Compare that to the team that realizes a fault, and resolves to correct it—they're sending people to other pits or the hardware store to gather supplies, and making mechanical changes. In effect, despite the exact degree of support of bumpers being totally immaterial on the overwhelming majority of robot designs, there is still a competitive advantage embodied in not complying. As such, inspectors will generally say that you need to fix the problem.

Despite this, there are some cases where noncompliance ends up being permitted, despite the fact that an advantage is gained. In some instances, teams have arrived with illegal motors on board, and can't remove them in time, without catastrophically hurting their chances to play their matches. If all that stands between a robot and gameworthiness is an illegal motor, then often the team will be passed with one strict restriction: that motor must be electrically disconnected, marked illegal and then removed at the earliest possible opportunity. The principal advantage (of an illegal motor) is negated, but the secondary advantage (of not having to get rid of it) is sometimes tolerated. That sort of thing isn't directly permitted in the rules; there's no clause offering inspectors discretion to bend rules when expeditious. In a backhanded way, that's a good thing—if the rule was poorly written, it would give the (relatively rare) less-than-competent inspector licence to bend rules in a capricious and inconsistent way. In the short term, we rely on the lead inspectors to make these sorts of calls, and when the lead inspectors can't justify the level of distortion of a rule that would be necessary, they can call FIRST HQ for a consultation (strictly at their own option—disgruntled teams can't make the call for them!). In the long term, perhaps it would be valuable to create a contingencies section of the rules, in order to explain in general terms that in certain cases, when all of these factors have been taken into consideration, FIRST supports this practice on a limited basis.

Now, returning to something that came up earlier: why are we enforcing provisions in the rules that are mostly useless? After all, not every rule is of equal importance or equal impact. The bumper rule, among several others, contains a number of specifications that are not especially important to gameplay, safety or other stated FIRST priorities. Teams are often understandably frustrated, for example, when confronted with a rule that makes an arbitrary but functionally immaterial distinction between parts. Inspectors can hardly take joy in having to tell a team that their careful engineering is for naught, because they used pneumatic tubing that was smaller than the only permissible size. And although you can blame the team for not reading the rule (which was plainly written in the manual), ultimately, it's a matter of having better rules, so that these issues don't come up in the first place. These are issues that the GDC needs to consider.

Another argument that comes up often in these sorts of discussions is that in real life, you can't possibly follow every law—so why is it necessary in FIRST? Well, FIRST isn't a perfect simulation of real life (nor is it realistically intended to be one, I don't think). In real life, nobody rewrites the body of law every year—but in FIRST, only this year's rules matter. In real life, precedent has a specific role in law—but in FIRST, precedents are not binding, infuriating as that might be when you pass inspection at one event and fail at the next. And most importantly, the laws of the real world deal with things of critical importance like liberties and rights—but in FIRST, the rules, and the procedures for applying and complying with the rules are drastically narrower in scope. Personally, while I might advocate for leniency in some areas of social policy (given the importance and consequences of those aspects of law), I tend to take a harder line within the limited scope of the FIRST rulebook.

To turn the usual example on its head: the rulebook is only 171 pages. That's a good deal, compared to any real-world jurisdiction's body of law, so take it and read it!

Similarly, while on one hand, the rulebook encourages us to use engineering judgment in interpreting rules, it does not offer an opportunity for engineering expertise to trump a specification. This statement in the rulebook probably creates more problems than it solves, because in stating the obvious, it also lends itself to the misinterpretation that simply because a practice or design is safe and effective (in someone's engineering judgment), it ought to be allowed at inspection. Teams regularly attempt to justify gross violations by saying that they wholeheartedly believed that they were complying with the intent of the rules—despite the fact that intent is rarely explained at all, and even more rarely stated officially in a form that can lead an inspector to override a rule. Most of the time, we're all guessing about the rule-writers' intent—and that makes it largely unsuitable for use in making on-site rulings.

There's another situation which sometimes compels a lead inspector to bend a rule—in effect, it's like negligent misrepresentation on FIRST's part (though in reality, the contractual arrangements between FIRST and a team probably aren't sufficient to justify the actual tort, nor would I be especially enthused at the prospect of litigation on that front). When FIRST tells the teams something via official or semi-official channels, teams can be expected to rely upon that information. If that message subtly contradicts a rule, or leads the team to interpret the rule in a way that satisfies the text of the rule, but which was not previously contemplated by FIRST—and was clearly not intended by the GDC—it doesn't matter: FIRST is still on the hook for their previous statement. The credibility of the competition depends on the ability of teams to trust the information that they receive, and when FIRST has made an error, the officials need to consider doing what equity demands. (I point out that rulings on this basis are exceedingly rare—if you're going to argue this, you'd better have an airtight case.)

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter

Upon re-reading the original posting, it seems the original poster may have instead been seeking the collective opinion of CD readers of what a team should do when they observe another team who is violating a rule.

Ken's comments on what to do about an observed violation are also helpful. No doubt, this is a complicated problem. If you feel comfortable reminding the other team of its obligation, then do so—but of course, some people do not appreciate that sort of comment, and it could affect your relationship with that team. My preference would be to tell the lead inspector or head referee—they're the volunteers who are empowered to deal with this sort of thing. The trouble with that is that you probably don't want to acquire a reputation as a snitch, or feel that you're imposing a potentially severe penalty upon a team. My response is that each team is responsible for following the rules: it's not the fault of the person reporting a violation—it's the fault of the violator, or at best a circumstance without fault that still needs to be ameliorated.

Originally Posted by Ken Streeter

PS: G45 is another rule where the referees had to make such a judgment call. 469's primary robot strategy would succeed / fail depending upon the interpretation of that rule. I believe that despite being under intense scrutiny, 469 stayed on the legal side of that line. However, their success points out that it is extremely important to teams designing robots to know where these regulatory lines are drawn, as the success / failure of a robot strategy is often highly dependent upon the exact rulings that will be made. Often times, there is a huge advantage in being able to come up right to the border of rule legality (without stepping over) as contrasted to instead choosing a design which stays well back from the border of rule legality. It is extremely frustrating to teams to make a design to come up right to the edge of the written rules (but no farther) and then to see other teams that stepped completely over the written rule, enjoying a significant competitive advantage because of their transgression.

I can absolutely sympathize with Ken's feelings here. When a rule isn't adequately explained, there are always nagging questions about where the boundary lies. This year, 469 took a bit of a risk by forging ahead with a design that could, depending on the interpretation of the rules, be considered illegal due to <G45> (active mechanisms contacting the ball), and arguably <R16> via <G46> (ball penetration into a mechanism above the bumper zone). While the <G45> question was addressed in an early team update, the <R16> question was never formally dealt with—and could have resulted in a nasty ruling going against them. (The issue was that the meaning of "inside a MECHANISM or feature designed or used to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is above the level of the BUMPER ZONE" was not clear. Is "inside" defined as being within some imaginary boundary drawn through the maximum extents of the mechanism? Passing more than three inches through a closed loop in the mechanism? Subtending more than three inches of the ball between points of contact, below a plane parallel to the motion vector of the ball?*)

I can't blame teams for being scared of being on the wrong side of an ambiguously-constructed rule. Actually, if you want a perfect example, consider Ken's team (1519) in 2008—they had issues with the interpretation of the definition of "robot", despite doing their due diligence to stay on the right side of the law. It was actually a bit embarrassing to see a robotics competition use a poorly constructed definition of "robot", and enforce it to the detriment of a team. (Even if the team was in the wrong—which I don't think they were—this is one of the rare instances where that negligent misrepresentation exception could have been rightfully suggested—at least, I believe so in my unofficial capacity as a bystander.)

*This was (basically) the definition we used in Waterloo, because it was the least restrictive definition that would universally be understood as being "inside".

[Wayne TenBrink]

The rules are the rules and they need to be enforced uniformly - both at inspection and during game play.

There has been a lot of discussion here about the similarity between the FRC rules and customer specifications. I see a lot of those, and they are often ambiguous or open to misinterpretation. If I see something I "don't like" I can either take exception or ask the customer to consider a change. The one thing I can't do is just ignore stuff and deliver whatever I feel like. There is a time & procedure for working out differences. FIRST has a similar concept with the Q&A forum and updates. Students should be taught to use this as a tool to make sure that their robot complies at inspection time.

I fret about some of the rules governing build schedule and re-use of fabricated parts. The way the rules are written, teams have an incentive to purchase mechanisms rather than develop and build their own. We are encouraged to develop prototypes and concepts in the fall, but then we are forbidden from using any component with the exact design in the robot - even if we built a new one during the build period. Our team has been evolving a frame/driveline "system" that can be adapted to a wide range of finished arrangements (wheel size & quantity, frame aspect ratio, ground clearance, etc.). The finished assembly will be different every year, but at some point a bracket, axle, or frame rail might need to be the same as some previous model - which would be a violation. If we just used the kit frame, we wouldn't have to worry about that. Perhaps per <R25, example 5> we could just publish our frame design and then it would be "public" and we could use the same design in the future. Gearboxes are another example. If we used public plans to modify a COTS gearbox to accept a CIM , we could use the exact design, but not the same gearbox again next year. If we just used the gearbox in the kit or bought one, we are free to use it over and over again. All of these rules are basically on the "honor system" because they are virtually impossible to verify and enforce.

Regarding <G43> violations - our robot was capable of posessing more than one ball. We considered the <G43> warning about multiple ball posession capability to be an indication that the referees would be watching - not a prohibition against having the capability. We thought the potential benefit of a wide pickup zone outweighed the risk of an occasional penalty, and it paid off. We used driver skill & ball magnet control & the occasional random kick to avoid penalties. We only receive one all season.

[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I have to admit...when I saw the thumbnail of that robot in CD-Media, my first thought was 'illegal bumpers...not again'.

My personal favorite example of illegal bumpers is this one -- an example of a team manufacturing legal bumpers but a GDC member actually modifying the bumpers to make them illegal and then presumably allowing them to compete with them anyway!

PS: The above photo is actually a great example of one of the ethical issues that arise regularly in order to follow the rules precisely -- are rule violations that don't give any competitive advantage to the offending team okay?

The problem is that once any rule violations are permitted, one now enters a slippery slope where a line has to be drawn between violations that are okay and ones that aren't...

PPS: Please realize that I'm not at all upset about teams that competed with bumpers signed by Dean Kamen -- this is just an ironic example of the dilemma that arises with many of the FRC rules...

[Chris is me]

The following statement may be elitist, mean, etc.

Pity passes are not a problem at all. The teams that get them are the teams that didn't read the rules well enough, and no team that unprepared for competition is going to have an effect on the eliminations anyway. (Unless this is Bayou 2010...) The only other "eh, whatever" passes are for stuff like 488's bumpers which, though illegal, really had no effect whatsoever on the current regional event.

I'm beginning to wonder if "worry about your own team" is something that shouldn't just apply when you're thinking nasty thoughts about your favorite teams from IFI. To a certain extent, if a random kitbot team has a bolthead issue or something, maybe you should live and let live, being content with the knowledge that you were the one to strive to read every rule of the rulebook and made sure your robot will never have anything of questionable legality. FIRST isn't supposed to be fair anyway, right?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Pity passes are a problem and should not occur. There are so many resources at a regional event that most every team can become compliant if they accept help. The LRI, Head Ref and FTA can come to a meeting of the minds on the best way to handle each situation. That decision is made with the knowledge of the resources at the event, the teams present, the ability to obtain legal parts and the amount of design work that is needed to accomplish the required work. The LRI should be knowledgeable enough to be able to look at the problem and see a variety of ways it can be corrected. We have to keep in mind that a team showed up at Champs without a robot, built one on the practice day with help from other teams and competed.
That being said, if you don't meet me at least halfway, if you refuse help from other teams, if you are a mentor who refuses to take action, then your students suffer. I don't want that, your students, parents and sponsor doesn't want that and First doesn't want that. Give me a chance and I(we) will figure something out. It makes you stronger, your students have a great experience, your alliance partners are happy, and the people in the stands won't know that anything is wrong.

[DonRotolo]

I agree Al, but sometimes it takes a baseball bat to convince the mentors to accept help. At one regional I wanted to smack this guy, but I just made a pest of myself until he gave in.

They passed inspection around 2 pm Friday

[dtengineering]

I love the photo of Dean Kamen making a set of bumpers illegal. It would have been entirely justified for an inspector to rule those bumpers illegal regardless of whose signature it was... but there is a point where discretion becomes important.

And that is why I would like to add one comment to the commentary on 488's bumpers that, while not particularly relevant to their legality, might help inform the discretion that was exercised in Seattle, at least.

488 could easily have fixed the bumpers. Their team, and mentors, are great at fixing problems. In fact, they spent a good chunk of the weekend fixing problems for many, many other teams. In addition to doing all the good, helpful things that top notch veteran FRC teams do, they also provided the machine shop and the crew to run it. If they absolutely HAD to fix those bumpers, they could have pulled a couple of their mentors from the machine shop, had them run out and get some new fabric, and had the bumpers fixed in a matter of hours. Instead, the mentors remained hard at work, helping teams with more significant problems, and less significant experience and resources, get their machines up and working. I think it was a good use of resources.

There were also a few less experienced teams who had done their blue bumpers up with black numbers, that... in Atlanta... would have been sent back for not being in a sufficiently contrasting colour. (At least if I were the inspector, they would have.) But given the amount of work that was going in to get struggling teams up and running, and have 100% of the kids get a chance to play the game, it probably made sense to focus on the "big picture" first.

At least those were the thoughts that I had when considering why the LRI might have exercised discretion in this case. It probably wasn't the call that I would have made, but I can understand why it was a good call to make.

Jason

P.S. Ironically we were (at first) asked to "fix" the mitred corners on our bumpers... at least until we showed our inspector that the rules had been changed to allow "bevelled" corners this year. It just goes to show that inspectors can get caught by rule changes, too. It's a tough job!

[pfreivald]

I am absolutely paranoid about making sure that all rules are being strictly followed. (1551 was one of those teams with a ball-handling mechanism that *could not* possess more than one ball... And unless something really weird was going on, a ball could not pass more than three inches inside our bumper perimeter anywhere.***)

I'm not an engineer. I have a BS in Physics and an MS in Deaf Education. The physics degree helps with this whole building a robot thing... sometimes... I know a lot more about quarks and neutrinos than I do about evaluating why a speed controller is acting funny, if it is fixable, and how. But aside from being a theoretical physics and sign language guy (and beekeeper), the other major thing I have been all my life is a gamer.

Tabletop war games, board games, card games... I love them, and I always have. One of the things I really, really love about FIRST is the challenge of the games themselves (I think we nailed the combination of strategy and robot functionality this year, and really missed badly last year), and one of the things I really, really hate about FIRST is the inconsistency with which rules are enforced. And the changing of rules -- such as ball penetration this year -- makes me want to set myself on fire.

It is my opinion that the rules should be clarified as necessary during the build season, but should not be changed, and should be enforced to the letter, across the board, regardless of the consequences to a team. From bumper rules to motor usage to restrictions on robot functionality to what penalties are given for what actions, there should be no pity passes for anyone, ever. Enforcement should be to the degree as to render the discussion in this thread entirely moot.

But on that note, the inspection checklist should be in the manual when it is released at kickoff, and only changed if a rule clarification makes it necessary. Checklists are easy to follow, and are a great way to make sure you don't have a serious problem five weeks in to the build season. (Well, let's be realistic. It's a great way to make sure you don't have _this_ serious problem. Your robot could still run amok and catch fire when you enable it. )

Unenforceable rules -- the 'on your honor' rules about prototypes vs. complete designs, for example -- should be stated as exactly that. We all know teams that use the exact same drive train or the exact same frame design based on the same CAD drawings every year. Even if they re-build it from scratch, it's not legal. But it's also not meaningfully enforceable either, because inspectors can't be expected to know the design specifications of every team's mechanisms from year to year. It's also trivially circumventable in letter if not spirit. ("No, no, it's not the same... The 1/4" hole we don't use for anything is 1/8" higher this year, see?") Rules that are not enforceable regarding the build should be explicitly stated as 'on your honor' (or GP, if you prefer).

Rules enforceable during inspection should be enforced in a draconian and unforgiving manner. (In Rack and Roll, robots should have to have demonstrated their mechanisms inside an appropriately-sized box to demonstrate that they did not exceed the size limitations, for example).

Rules that are enforced in-game should be easily enforceable by a good ref crew, and should be enforced as consistently as humanly possible. (I watch football. I understand that officials make mistakes, and that they can't see everything all the time. But they make sure they have enough refs to catch everything that should be caught, and they generally do a good job. The same is true for FIRST in my experience -- the ref crews are stunningly good, IMO.)

In-game or inspection-based rules that cannot be enforced (either because there is no way the refs can possibly keep track of whatever it is, or because it would be too big a delay or too big of a logistical hassle in the inspection process) SHOULD NOT BE WRITTEN.

But at the end of the day, it is not the refs' -- or the inspectors' -- job to be nice. They have a duty to perform, and they should perform that duty to the best of their ability.

That's my two cents.

Patrick

***The one place I saw ball penetration happening a WHOLE LOT was when robots were going over the hump if a ball was in the way. We wanted to make sure that we would not incur these penalties even in this situation, so we designed our robot to not incur such penalties -- and in doing so, we could go over the hump, slowly, on the FLR practice field, and on the actual field, and yet couldn't do so at Championship... We think a very small difference in the hump construction was all it took. A lesson learned about engineering things too closely! But the point being that there was a rule we took very seriously, and doing so served us very well at FLR... And then it was changed in such a way that we could have been a bit less conservative with our hump-climbing design parameters, and been more successful in that area.

[Don Wright]

Yes, my original question was more about when (and how) should you say something if you see something that is illegal in your opinion? What is the ethical and proper method for different issues:

- They are non-functional issues (improper labeling on bumpers, Dean signed it, etc...)
- They are functional issues (you think someone's ball grabber is illegal)
- They are questionable game play issues (guiding balls into the goals from the ball return)
- They are non-robot issues (saving seats, over zealous safety captains)

Here are some of the ways I've seen it suggested/done:

- Try and talk to the team
- Report to the lead inspector
- Report it to the FTA
- Report it to the Lead ref
- Come on to CD to discuss the issue

Just curious to see how different teams handle these situations and get some feedback on the response they received.

Yes, it's a touchy/difficult subject.