Inspection oversight DQ's team in the quarters

[Creator Mat]

I would like to start this thread first by saying congrats to 1732(Hilltoppers) 16(bomb squad) and 3352(flaming monkeys) on their win in Midwest and to 1625 (Winnovation) on their Chairmen award.

At the Midwest regional in the quarterfinals my team was aligned with 3061(Orange Monsters) and 2769(Scorpion Kings) and right before our first match of the quarter finals 3061 got disqualified and disabled for the entire match for having a piece of their lexan roof slightly going over the bumper perimeter by the refs (i saw the overhang my self but it was extremely slight and you kind of had to have it pointed out to you). My team thinks this was a bit extreme. When their bot had to pass 1 and a half inspections (im counting the inspections before eliminations begin as an half inspection) and played all of their matches. I am not blaming the inspectors for this, they work hard and always do their best but 3061 was never warned that they where violating the bumper perimeter rule before. So why did it have to result in a DQ? i do know that the refs can DQ bots for being dangerous but this situation seemed like it should have been a penalty not a DQ.Then when our alliance went to challenge the DQ and get the match replayed (cause they did pass inspection and according to them they didn't change that part of the robot) we where told that teams change their robots all the time and just because they passed inspection doesn't mean the bots stay legal. Doesn't Gracious Professionalism count for anything?

Granted even if 3061 was able to play in the first match the chances of our alliance of winning against 1625 (Winnovation), 111 (wildstang), and 3135 (Robotic Colonels) were not the greatest, our alliance should have called a time out (i don't know why we didn't), and the odds of the match getting replayed where slim due to the hassle it takes to replay a match

I am obviously biased in this situation but i am over it and what is in the past is in the past. However i am still wondering about the following
Why did 3061 get DQed instead of penalized?
Was the refs right in DQing 3061 when they were never warned of the situation?
Was the reason given for not replaying the match a good reason for not replaying the match?

[sanddrag]

I can't answer your questions specifically so to why a DQ instead of a penalty, but there is a portion of the inspection checklist, that basically says, even if the inspectors missed something, the team certifies everything is compliant by the rules. This section must be signed by a student and adult on the team, if I recall. So, unfortunate yes, but, it happens.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I can't answer your questions specifically so to why a DQ instead of a penalty, but there is a portion of the inspection checklist, that basically says, even if the inspectors missed something, the team certifies everything is compliant by the rules. This section must be signed by a student and adult on the team, if I recall. So, unfortunate yes, but, it happens.

THIS is why you read everything you sign and ask for a copy of it for your own records. (Just a good life lesson)

As far as the topic, yes it sucks but if a team cannot comply with the rules they should not be allowed to compete. On the other hand, the nice thing would have been to give them a heads up and let you call your timeout so they could fix it.

[Tristan Lall]

<R16> via <S02> calls for a penalty plus an optional a yellow card. A red card and disablement doesn't seem correct in this instance, if you've accurately described the violation. This could definitely have been considered a field fault affecting the outcome of a match (those can include errors by event personnel), and as a result, a replay probably should have been ordered.

However, there's nothing particularly wrong with the referees calling <S02> on you without warning—it really is your responsibility to comply with all robot rules. It applies equally to the cases where a team makes a change and doesn't get reinspected, and to the cases where an inspector misses the violation. Although they're not the same from a team's perspective, from the perspective of an official, there's no simple way of knowing whether the team was trying to cheat.

Regarding taking the timeout: there's a very strict schedule for calling a timeout. Unless you happened to ask the referee at the correct time, it wouldn't have been possible to use it anyway.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

The robots in question were called on this to my knowledge...

<G10> ROBOT Size – Prior to the MATCH, each ROBOT shall not exceed the NORMAL CONFIGURATION maximum weight or volume specified in Rule <R10>. The Head Referee may call for an inspector's recertification of the ROBOT size and weight prior to the start of any MATCH. Violation (for ROBOTS prior to the match): Prohibition from participating in the MATCH.

The robot in question was not able to remove the cover easily to correct the problem. The team removed the cover and cut the lexan to insure that cover movement did not take them outside the frame perimeter for the remaining matches.

[Creator Mat]

ok thanks i was just wandering about the thinking behind the DQ