At the time of Inspection, the ROBOT must be presented with all MECHANISMS (including all COMPONENTS of each MECHANISM), configurations, and decorations that will be used on the ROBOT during the entire competition event. It is acceptable, however, for a ROBOT to play MATCHES with a subset of the MECHANISMS that were present during Inspection. Only MECHANISMS that were present during the Inspection may be added, removed or reconfigured between MATCHES. If MECHANISMS are changed between MATCHES, the reconfigured ROBOT must still meet all Inspection criteria.
I want to see what peoples take on this rule is. To me I read this as that each robot has to be presented at initial inspection with all components of each mechanism for any configurations that are planned to be used during the “ENTIRE COMPETITION EVENT”… E.G. if you came to the competition with a robot designed to be an awesome shooter, but then suddenly see another team has this awesome device, or some other component that allows it to do something completely different. I talking adds a totally new function to your robot and you thus start playing the game in a tottaly different way because of this new mechanism it should NOT be allowed. In fact it even goes on to specifically state that ONLY Mechanisms that were present during during the inspection may be added/removed/reconfigured between matches…
We got the #1 seed, and went to finals with an AWESOME long range shooter and had two teams them subsuqently out of the blue build completely jury rigged 84" masts with plastic and netting specifically added to block our alliance partners shots. These masts WERE NOT used during any other matches, were NOT presented during initial inspection, and didn’t exist until other teams saw the threat our long range shooting alliance partner brought to the table.
(much more importantly they did not exist in any way shape or form before initial inspection).
What are your thoughts. Personally I think the rule is pretty black in white, as it does specifically state that the mechanisms used for the entire competition event must be presented at inspection (implies initial one), and then further clarifies that ONLY mechanisms preesented during inspection may be added/removed/reconfigured… thus further indicating the intention to not allow teams to fabricate new mechansisms out of the blue to add whole new funcationality just to defeat other teams with a different design that is difficult to defend with the robot you brought to the arena…
Yes, you’re right, everything does need to be inspected. But, that doesn’t mean mods can’t be made at the event. They just all have to be inspected before you go on the field.
FRC 2789 did this at least 4 times this season, notably during elims at Lubbock. With the help of the Bomb Squad, we taped on a bunch of pool noodle and fiberglass rod between matches. The inspector was there, watched us do it, and signed off on it.
So, it’s not that you can’t make changes, it’s that all changes must be inspected. The manual never says that there’s only one inspection. You can get an inspector at any time. But, everything on your robot needs to have been inspected before you go on the field for a given match.
The “snag” so to speak, as Gregor pointed out, is that the time of inspection is not specified. It does not express the difference between the “initial inspection”, the “inspection prior to elimination rounds” or any inspection before or after it. Once a robot has been inspected (and subsequently re-inspected), parts that were present during inspection become fair game.
“If MECHANISMS are changed between MATCHES, the reconfigured ROBOT must still meet all Inspection criteria.”
You’ve already had your attention called to T10, but I can pull up a few more rules.
T11 specifically states where Fabricated Items must be built at competition (pits or machine shop). This implies that you can build fabricated items, which would presumably include blockers. You can certainly bring in said fabricated items with your withholding, so there is nothing preventing someone from building one between bag day and the event and bringing it. You might also note that maybe they were inspected with the blockers at their very first inspection and opted to compete without them through the whole event until they met you guys in the elims. Remote possibility, but it could happen, and even with your interpretation of T08 it’s legal.
Incidentally, there used to be a rule (which seems to have gone MIA in the last few years–might be a good idea to return it, if anyone official is reading this) that specifically stated building at events was allowed. R18’s absence of prohibition on building things at competition, and the exclusion of raw material from any list of things you cannot bring to competition, certainly imply that building new devices is allowed without that rule in place.
If there are any further questions on this, or on whether a robot that has added an entirely new mechanism is legal, please follow T10’s blue box and have a friendly chat with your friendly event LRI. They will be more than happy to address any concerns that you have, even if the response is “The item you are concerned about is permitted under Rule ____.”.
I do think the rules are a bit confusing on this, but recognize that modifications during competition are part of the game… We also have a long-range shooter and during qualifications, single-handedly put up over 100 points. Of course, Saturday morning came around and everybody and his brother were building blocking devices.
Frankly, not allowing them to do so would have taken the fun out of it all - otherwise we would have sat at the feeding station all competition, firing away. Instead, other teams found themselves in an inferiior situation and worked feverishly to remedy it. (Talk about a learning experience!) Moreover, we had anticipated this and had a drive train strong enough to push them back, etc. In our last match (yes, we were eliminated), we put up 40ish points on our own against a determined defender. It was quite sporting.
Of course, we have come up with some new ideas since losing and look forward to displaying them at Seattle this weekend!
Sometimes rookie teams show up with a box full of parts and no bumpers to regionals…if rules were intended to keep them from adding functionality, they wouldn’t be able to compete if they showed up in that scenario.
As JEE7S pointed out, we’ve done this at two regionals now, making it to finals in week one and winning in week two. We got help from some of the most established and well-respected teams in our part of the country to mod our defensive robot, and our kids and mentors both learned so much in such a short period of time from these interactions. If rules were intended to prevent these interactions from happening, wouldn’t those rules violate several of the FIRST core values?
And let me add ya’ll were very cool with it. I’m not sure all teams would be happy about taping pool noodles and fiberglass rods to their robot, but y’all were willing to do whatever it took.
Y’all were great to work with and did and excellent job blocking 2468s full court shot. It got us into the finals where we ran up against 1986… not much we could do about them.
In my humble opinion, some of these rules appear to conflict with one another. However, I believe that it is in the spirit of FIRST to allow adaptation in response to circumstances. So, modify away. I just wish it was as easy to add a decent disk collector as it is to add a pool noodle blocker.
I think that it was just good strategy that came into play there. They saw the opportunity and snagged it to pretty much shutdown one of the power teams on the alliance. I’ve seen teams do that plenty through the years. I know your alliances defender robot was trying their best to defend you guys from them, but in the end, it just didn’t play out.
Thanks, Jefferson! …and just so you know, 2789 is working on version 4 of a blocker, and we will hopefully be unveiling it this week at Alamo…this mod is specifically based on something we noticed about 1986 at Lubbock, so if we run into them at champs, we will hopefully give them a pretty good headache
You’re absolutely right…and working with Mr. Novak and the Bomb Squad to do this is like sharing a duet with John Coltrane or Miles Davis! They are truly inspiring to work with!
Dan,
I cut out a lot of your statement and bolded a couple of areas of concern. You have interjected your opinion and added an assumed “initial” to the actual rules. This happens a lot in life and in FRC competitions. Small assumptions like this can cause a lot of upset feelings.
At the events where I am LRI, I let teams know that they need to be re-inspected before they can compete. The 3 areas I look for are starting inside the frame perimeter, weight, and then overall height. Once I know the height, and that they are legal, they are free to compete, and then I can relay the height to the referees so that they know that the bot is 59.5" instead of 60.5".
We had a lot of such modifications occur at 1 event with a few full field shooter, and then vitrually no additions at a venue that had only 1 full field shooter.
We also had experienced teams making tweaks to their rookie partners to improve infeed of frisbees from the players station, more robust battery hold-downs, and clean-ups of loose wiring.
I definitely think you should be allowed to add a frisbee blocker. I think it’s kinda just sour grapes from teams with full-court shooters to say you can’t. The same kind of tacked-on defense could be played against a ground-fed robot- a cardboard snowplow could could hoard all the discs in one end.
I am willing to bet there are a few teams competing in Oklahoma this weekend that would love to know your planned strategy for shutting down 1986. I know we would have used that knowledge in KC a few weeks ago to turn the outcome of just one semi-final game.
Realize that this could pull at lot of G24 fouls, though. Hoarding to one end is by definition “herding” rather than “bulldozing”.
As to the OP, this is not a case in which interpretations are valid. The question isn’t open to interpretation: your contention that T10, T11 and robot-rule compliant additional are illegal is simply false.
