[FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Orion.DeYoe

Second of all, the media got involved. Every one of us here in the 21st century should know the kind of damage that the media can do to an organization/individual's reputation. We should also be aware that a ruined reputation for a robotics team will interfere with it's ability to gain and retain sponsors as well as their ability to inspire further generations to become involved with STEM (which, may I remind you, is FIRST's entire mission).
I think that the way FIRST handled the repercussions of this decision were very inadequate. FIRST needs to write a press release to defend the reputation of these teams as well as writing each of their sponsors to explain the situation. It is FIRST's responsibility to make sure that the damage to a few teams' reputation doesn't cause these teams permanent harm as well a to prevent the bad reputation to spread to other teams and the organization as a whole.

Hmm, I don't like a call a ref made, I'ma go whine to my local paper. Do you honestly believe I couldn't spin the facts in a way that could get a sympathetic story in some paper? Every reporter loves a story of a big group negatively impacting children. That sells papers. So, now does FIRST have to address this issue?

No.

Besides, did FIRST do anything when people on here attack other teams and accuse them of cheating? Or when students are being harassed? Or heck, when volunteers are being harassed? No. They haven't. They've left us out on our own in the past, I don't see why that would change now.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Orion.DeYoe

First of all, the "reinspection process" is NOT well-defined in the manual and as such a team has no way of knowing the magnitude of change that requires reinspection (do we need to get an inspector every time we change tread on the wheels?). Team's should not be made to suffer for FIRST's inability and refusal to define many rules properly. A team would have to be obviously and purposefully cheating before I would advocate a ruling like this.

T10

If a ROBOT is modified after it has passed Inspection, other than modifications described in T8, that ROBOT must be re-Inspected.

How is that not well defined? ANY change to the robot, except those expressly permitted per T8, requires a reinspection. The problem is teams simply don't follow this rule. They make small changes and think "nah, that doesn't need reinspection"... and there's usually no way for the inspectors to catch on, except when we do the mandatory reinspection for eliminations. Ever wonder why we reweigh the robots, and put our foot on the scale while we do it? It's to get teams to stop and think and tell us what actually changed on their robot, because we know they made changes they didn't tell us about. You wouldn't believe the number of times I've had a team walk up, say "we didn't change anything!" and then when their robot is off by 2 lbs they start saying "well, we took this off here, and we replaced this, and we added supports for this..."

And yes, reinspections should include replacing tread on wheels - that is the main part of the robot that interacts with the carpet, and inspectors need to be able to verify that the alteration does not risk significant damage to the carpet. Specifically, if you're attaching it with a pop-rivets, as many teams do, I need to be able to see that the new pop-rivets were installed properly and won't cause an issue. The same could be said of zip ties (where is the head of the zip tie located?) or gluing (are any exposed rims of the wheels properly accounted for? Is the glue dry so it would get all over the field?) or any other attachment method you can think of.

These reinspections are not cursory, they are not lighter or less rigorous than the initial inspection. The only difference is the scope - we don't have to worry about the entire robot any more, just the small area where the change was made.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

How is that not well defined? ANY change to the robot, except those expressly permitted per T8, requires a reinspection. The problem is teams simply don't follow this rule. ...snip..

And yes, reinspections should include replacing tread on wheels - that is the main part of the robot that interacts with the carpet, ...snip...

These reinspections are not cursory, they are not lighter or less rigorous than the initial inspection. The only difference is the scope - we don't have to worry about the entire robot any more, just the small area where the change was made.

What is not well defined is exactly what is an "re-inspection" & how it gets documented. T8 speaks to modification not repairs. Just when a repair becomes a modification is a judgement call not all defined by the rules. If you expect robots to be reinspected after every repair, then the process is fundamentally flawed & you can't fault teams for not following it a 100%. You are also going to need a lot more inspectors. The other Frank says the process is going to get some attention. I am expecting positive changes.

Removing a mechanism present during the original inspection does not trigger a need for re inspection per T8. Adding the ballast to compensate would require reinspection. As a side note reinstalling the mechanism if the ballast + mechanism exceeded the allowed robot weight would probably be against the rules.

[sanddrag]

I missed it? What exactly was the issue with the one robot? Were they out of compliance with robot construction rules, or overweight or something?

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

What is not well defined is exactly what is an "re-inspection" & how it gets documented. T8 speaks to modification not repairs. Just when a repair becomes a modification is a judgement call not all defined by the rules. If you expect robots to be reinspected after every repair, then the process is fundamentally flawed & you can't fault teams for not following it a 100%. You are also going to need a lot more inspectors. The other Frank says the process is going to get some attention. I am expecting positive changes.

Removing a mechanism present during the original inspection does not trigger a need for re inspection per T8. Adding the ballast to compensate would require reinspection. As a side note reinstalling the mechanism if the ballast + mechanism exceeded the allowed robot weight would probably be against the rules.

The current rule set is incomplete, if any team were to follow it to the letter they would need to be reinspected just prior to every match. Currently having wheels wear down at all, which happens in every match, would need to be reinspected or having your robot scratched during a match those are modifications that happen after inspection. T8 only refers to MECHANISMS being removed/added/reconfigured not to individual parts being modified.

We trust teams to follow the rules and to compete in good faith. That is what the last portion of the inspection sheet is for, where we have a student and mentor sign the form. I truly hope what ever this change is that we remember that everyone involved in this program chooses to put in a ton of time to help students be successful and for that we should trust them to make good decisions. No matter how detailed the inspections and re-inspections, I'm sure that if any team wanted to cheat they could easily do it. Bag and Tag is all honor system after all. Yes major changes need to be reinspected because it's good to have an outside pair of eyes look at your robot and check that everything is still in compliance. A piece of tape here or a zip tie their rarely make a difference to any matches or to the overall safety of an event.

When I inspect a robot, I'm not looking for teams that cheated, I'm looking to help teams make their robot safe and in compliance with the rules. I have never assumed a team that is not in compliance with the rules ever did so deliberately to gain advantage and if I ever start thinking that way, I would strongly reconsider what we're all doing here.

[rsisk]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I heard there was a pilot of a new event management app in MAR... you never know if pilots will be successful and adopted, or fail and be set aside though - I certainly hope it was successful!

I had the privilege of using GMS (the system being referenced) at Chestnut Hill and it was brilliant for the inspectors. Never had to go back to the inspection station, all paperwork, signature, status updates, notes and pictures could be done on the tablet. Team had to go to inspection station for weighing, but that's it. Individual inspectors could also be assigned to a team from the inspection desk and when they looked at the pit map on their tablet, they would see the teams they were assigned to.

I'm pushing hard to get this implemented out here in SoCal for inspectors.

Same system also supported judges in much the same way. I used it as Match Observer at Chestnut Hill and loved the ability to get up and roam while observing matches.


And now back to the original topic of the thread....

GMS would be perfect for doing reinspections in the queue line, on the field, in the pit and having a record of the reinspection.

[Chris is me]

I don't know if the paperwork has to be that extreme. I could see a few lines at the bottom of the Inspection Checklist - Reinspection Date / Time, Changes Made, Inspector Signature. Just have 4 sets of those 3 fields at the bottom of forms to know a robot has been reinspected. The Changes Made field will clear up issues like these where it wasn't obvious to some if the change was included in a particular reinspection.

I'd like to commend Frank for continuing to comment on these difficult circumstances, even when he can't give news that satisfies everyone. His maturity and gracious professionalism continue to inspire.

[George1902]

Attached is the form used at South Florida to track robot changes and reinspections.

Hopefully this ends any of the nonsense talk about willful malfeasance. These are all three Chairman's Award teams that we all should be emulating. They are among the nicest, kindest, and fun people you'll get to meet in FIRST.

Bacon and CRyptonite: Best of luck in St. Louis!

Pink: Champs won't be the same without you guys. But we'll try to represent Florida proudly, as you all have done the last 16 years.

[Brandon_L]

Originally Posted by Ben Martin

Funny that you should mention this--the inspectors at Springside-Chestnut Hill and MAR Champs were using tablets with some sort of inspection app. We weren't given any forms to sign, just a sticker when we were done. There were a bunch of features, including a nice diagram of all the teams on a pit map and where they stood in the inspection process.

Maybe they were piloting something? Really not sure.

Yes, it is a pilot program in MAR. From what I understand the guys at FIRST are watching its progress. I volunteered at bridgewater and I got to use the program for Queuing. Tablets are lent to volunteers (signed out at the beginning of the day, then signed back in before you head out). The app features Queuing, Inspection status of teams, pit maps, a Game Announcer mode where you can scroll from match to match and get info on each of the 6 teams (Name, Motto, Sponsors, Robot name, everything.) For queuing, we had a match schedule that would autoscroll to highlight the match on the field in yellow and the next two matches in green. You could tap a team to bold them, a method of 'marking' them as in queue.

A judge showed me the judges portion of the app. This section seemed like it needed the most work, but it did show promise. They had everyone fill out surveys after the event and asked for feedback. Overall, it made everyone's lives easier and saved a bunch of trees.

In the case of inspectors, it has the full inspection checklist and the inspector simply scrolls down it and answers yes/no or checks off various things. Teams start showing up with a red backround which is shown in the pit map, match schedule, pretty much everywhere. When they're fully inspected they turn green. Queuers were told if a team showed up to queue with anything but a green background to grab an inspector. There were some other colors as well, such as yellow and pink. I'm not entirely sure what the significance of those were, but I'm sure someone that was an inspector could answer.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Very glad to see Frank finally publicly address this issue. I have had the pleasure to work with both 624 and 233 closely and they are both world class organizations and I respect them both greatly. I haven't competed with 1902 since their rookie season but they are still my go to example of what FIRST imagery is all about and I have only ever heard great things about their program.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by ZehP

So this basically means that we'll be filling out a form every time we make a change to the robot? That isn't too big of a deal.

Now if only we could get our programmers to do that

As it stands now, when teams are inspected, is there a timestamp that goes along with it? Perhaps on the display it could show exactly when an inspector last officially passed a team, and as long as it's before the match time, all is well.

[Jared Russell]

Props to Frank for acknowledging situations like these head on and working to make sure they don't happen again.

[jvriezen]

I hope the paperwork burden is minimized or even eliminated. I think an decent solution would be a pad of change forms that all inspectors could keep in their back pocket. It would include a tear off portion that the team retains as proof of re-inspection and part that stays in the pad (and is filed at the inspection station). It would note the date/time of re-inspection, nature of changes, and new weight (if re-weighed). This would still allow for 'on the spot' re-inspections when a team doesn't have time to go to the inspection station before the next match or during elim fix-ups.

Maybe even simpler is for the team to whip out a video camera/phone/tablet and record a short video that includes the nature of the change and a statement from inspector that it has been inspected and a statement of date/time etc.

I actually had a team do exactly that when I re-inspected their bot after they added a frisbee blocker to defend against a tall FCS bot last year. It keeps the situation as now, but the team retains video evidence that an inspector has said "Team 9999 has officially passed re-inspection at 11:40AM on March 15th for the addition of a nuclear reactor to drive the Freon cooled hydraulically controlled flame throwing arm system." The video would include shots of the parts on the robot that have been added or changed. Only the team needs to retain the video to respond to any challenges about re-inspection.

[techtiger1]

What I don't understand here is why the officials on the field seemingly could not make a call that was final. I understand consulting with FIRST about the issue to get the call right but take responsibility for what was or wasn't done. Frank can give his opinion based on information he was given but don't come out and say the ruling from FRC headquarters is this and that's final. Say the refs consulted with FIRST regarding what they thought the rules said and the final call from the field is this.

I want to thank Frank and FIRST for public comment on the matter and I am glad provisions are being looked at to make the reinspection process better.

[Cory]

I'm glad Frank has cleared this up.

It still concerns me that there seems to be a precedent set here where a team can be retroactively DQ'ed for being in violation of a robot rule.

T6 seems to have been taken to the extreme and interpreted to mean that if a team is ever in a condition where they would not currently pass inspection (but were previously inspected), they can be DQ'ed from a match at any point in time thereafter.

My interpretation of the rule is that a team must have passed initial inspection in order to play and that any condition that puts them out of compliance with the rules must be remedied as soon as it is called to their attention, before they can go on the field again, per G4

Perhaps a Q&A is appropriate here.