During my three years in FIRST, I’ve noticed that FIRST is a lot like The Matrix.
Some rules can be bent, others broken, others enforced half the time, others not enforced at all.
I believe that there should be some more concrete definitions in the rulebook of what phrases like “intentional damage” mean. At one regional, it was only evoked if damage was done due to the opposing alliance’s actions on a robot directly. At another, it was evoked when no damage was done. At the championships, it was only used if serious damage was done (and not needed, in the end, in my division).
At some regionals, ‘mouse-bot’ machines were disallowed, at others, allowed. Some out of tape measures totally against the rules - still allowed.
I’ve heard some horror stories filtering out of regionals with teams using 4 drill motors, simply switching motors when the judges left.
Or teams designing robots in a way to flip others simply by design (wedge) yet were not disqualified outright for creating a robot designed to flip others. (This was common enough for me to notice at competitions)
I’ve heard of team getting away with things simply because they had people on the inspecting staff, or perhaps no one thought thier robot would do well, and thus let them use duct tape on thier machine.
My question is fourfold.
What does it take to be a referee/inspector? - Don’t get me wrong, most of them do a fine job, but some of them seemed to have some bias that would interfere with judging an event.
Would some sort of entrance exam based on the rules of the game be a good idea to ensure that refs all have a good understanding of the rules?
If FIRST really wants to grow, wouldn’t they need paid refs, just like real sports’ organizations?
I can’t really answer the first 1 & 3, but I think 2 &4 are definitly good ideas… But only if the “random” inspector is not the original inspector. This would remove bias that the original may have had due to team friendlieness, etc.
Perhaps also some intercommunication of rule interpretation?
Say for the first regionals of the season, there are more than one (I don’t know off-hand). The head ref’s from each regional should talk with eachother at Lunch break on Thursday and Friday about any rule occurances that are questionable. (Such as the ‘mouse-bot’). They should decide what should be allowed, then the rest of the regionals should follow suit.
What happens if Regional #1 doesn’t allow ‘mouse-bots’ and Regional #7 allows them. Team X attends regionals 1 and 7 but removes a key strategy from their bot on Thursday because they think it’s not going to be allowed… Once again brings up the whole ‘shafted’ topic.
We’re never going to manage to stop everyone from cheating. I think that things could be a bit more strict and a bit more uniform (such as the suggestion by Gadget). Compare FIRST to a major sport and it seems like we need to get it together and make our rules concrete. But remember, we remake the game every year and spend less than 5 months on it before it is left to off season and then to history. So compare FIRST to something like Science Olympiad. From one competition to another there is no telling how close to the rules the administrator of the individual events will be. For instance, in Science of Fitness (an event dealing with anatomy, physiology, and nutrition) the rules once stated that we would be dealing with the heart and lungs, however the regional coordinator tested us on the intestinal system. Sorry to go off topic, but my point is that for how dynamic things are with FIRST, they do a pretty good job of keeping things consistent.
We just finished dealing with a whole issue regarding dress codes and stuff in our school district. It was a real pain. I am not sure that I would want to go through that all over again and make up a whole bunch of new FIRST uniform rules.
I know that at So Cal last year, a few of us went over the rules with the head ref Friday morning. He had obviously read the rules, but as we have seen, FIRST has had a diffcult time with the clairity of their rule writting. He had questions about when a ‘rover’ on top counted and when it didn’t, with touching other ‘rovers’ and so on. They were very intelligent questions, but it seemed he had done nothing but read the FIRST rules. So there are two sides to this. By not having been involved, there isn’t any bias, but then again he hasn’t seen the precidents for the rules that had been set the previous weeks. That said, I’ve never seen anything resembling bias on the part of the refs.
Inspections, on the other hand, are a much more open to interpretation. For example, there can be no sharp edges. What is a sharp edge? What I was told would be a good thought would be to use the palm of my hand across it. Diffrent inspectors will think diffrent edges sharp.
Some things are obvious, motor count, types of motors. Duct tape can not be used as a fastener but it can, however, be used as a non functional decoration. (Covering sharp edges is not nonfunctional)
Also, in response to the to many motors, I keep hearing “I’ve heard that teams used to many motors” but have never seen this, nor heard anyone be able to confirm this. That would delagate it to the rumor mill, and there it should stay.
Also, in response to the to many motors, I keep hearing “I’ve heard that teams used to many motors” but have never seen this, nor heard anyone be able to confirm this. That would delagate it to the rumor mill, and there it should stay.
I’ve seen a team show up to a regional with too many of one motor on their robot. They did not compete that way, however.
For a bit of clarity. Head refs have had communication with FIRST before the regional. Any discrepts are dealt with then. As more regionals happen more “angles” are covered.
Let’s look at it another way. There are about 800 teams competing. Each one is pushing themselves, their robots and the rules to the limit. They are all trying to get the winning angle. FIRST has to design a new game every year and a few people try to implement rules to make the game work. What are the chances that all angles are covered and everyone would be happy. Many teams build their robots to work slightly outside of the rules to get an edge. They don’t try to destroy other robots or the integrity of the game but they knowingly violate the spirit of the rules. Most of the teams when notified of their infraction fix the issue without complaints.
I guess the issue is Gracious Professionalism. Should we bend the rules to try and win? If every team followed the rules and the spirit of the rules then we wouldn’t have any problems. This however will not happen as teams now need to win to advance. I believe though that MOST teams do and will follow the guidelines. That’s what makes FIRST such a great environment. Lets hope that every team that follows these guidelines influence one other team. It won’t take long for this type of forum to disappear.
quit whinin’ that’s all part of competition. If someone purposely damages you for no reason it’s pretty appartent. For example: Running full speed into a dead bot on the corner of the field. Human error is what makes competition, competition.
*Originally posted by KenWittlief *
**as for running into other robots
with the auton mode, its pretty much a given that this is going to happen - so your bot better be designed to take it. **
I think he’s referring to the non-auto mode time. I think all of us know collision is bound to happen during auto time, but in human control time, excessive collision between robots generally isn’t needed.
*Originally posted by Ben Mitchell *
**During my three years in FIRST, I’ve noticed that FIRST is a lot like The Matrix.
My question is fourfold.
What does it take to be a referee/inspector? - Don’t get me wrong, most of them do a fine job, but some of them seemed to have some bias that would interfere with judging an event.
Would some sort of entrance exam based on the rules of the game be a good idea to ensure that refs all have a good understanding of the rules?
If FIRST really wants to grow, wouldn’t they need paid refs, just like real sports’ organizations?
Would random inspections be a good idea? **
Here is my 2 cents worth:
What does it take to be a referee/inspector?
Usually a head referee or a head inspector is assigned to regional by FIRST. It is usually a senior FIRST or FIRST volunteer with years of experience. But every year the challenge is different or new parts are added to the kits. Volunteer training unfortunately is short. Volunteers already commit a lot of time, 3 to 5 days, to a regional event which is enormously valuable. People are taking off from work , school, and family time to help run FIRST. Imagine asking them to send 1 to 2 more days from work or home to train for refereeing or inspection.
Would some sort of entrance exam based on the rules of the game be a good ideal to ensure that refs all have a good understanding of the rules?
Referees and inspector are trained but only occurring to the rules and guidelines FIRST gives them from their documentation. This become an disadvantage because the students, coaches and mentors playing the game knows more about the game’s loopholes, misses, and problems than the volunteers who has to read thru 20+ team updates in a couple of hours.
It is almost impossible for the Head Referee and his volunteers to keep up with all the possible scenarios that can occur during field of play. And Inspectors have to play detective, cop and negotiator with some team that push the rules- I have seen some teams intentionally violate rules and some teams just don’t interprete the rules correctly.
Last year FIRST asked for more Team members to volunteer will refereeing and inspecting. Tt is not perfect, it won’t fix all the problems but a positive step for improvement.
If FIRST really wants to grow, wouldn’t they need paid refs, just like real sports" organizations?
No. I think this would go against the mission of FIRST.
Would random inspections be a good idea?
Yes, and other teams have also helped by reporting violation to the inspector. Last year one team replace their whole front end which violated the weight limit by 15+ pounds; no respect for gracious professionalism.
FIRST reflects LIFE, it’s not perfect, but worth living.
Sadly enough I helped inspect robots at West Michigan and there were quite a few problems. Knowing our robot well and all of the rules made it pretty easy to spot obvious problems and yes I have seen teams use the wrong number of motors, the wrong breakers, wrong wiring on the pump, Victor 883’s, modifications to the air cylinders, custom valves, you name it. The worst part about being an inspector or Judge is that even though you are there on your own time, including a hotel room!, people are upset that you re following the rules. And if a previous regional missed the rule violations shame on them, not shame on me for catching them. Especially the violations that are clearly labeled on the inspection sheet.
Having inspected robots in the past, let me be the first to say that it’s not a particularly easy job. You have to remember that there’s one inspector for each robot which means that that one inspector has to know about all aspects of the robot. The two key parts of the inspection are the electronics and the pneumatics. Now, personally, I know the electronic rules quite well. I don’t know the pneumatic rules that well at all. I did have some help with the pneumatic side of things (thanks ChrisH) but I’m sure there were some teams that managed to slip by with something slightly out of spec because I just didn’t know enough about the pneumatics (and I’m sure the action was misadvertant and not intentional but mistakes happen). On the flip side of things, I know that I probably made some teams change some electrical things that most inspectors would let go through as it was incidental (I’m picky on my wiring).
All in all, it’d be quite hard to standardize things like inspection simply because there’s so much variation among both people and teams.
Perhaps the concept of Jack of All Trades, Master of None… shouldn’t be applying to judges.
When someone has to memorize every rule, and know the possibly swaying within them (those borderline robots, for example, 68 before removing the extensions which would “hold” the outside rails) there is bound to be a lapse somewhere. Someone will get by that shouldn’t, intentional or not.
Having people that are instructed to know certain parts of the rules could likely alleviate a vast majority.
Inspector 1: Checks for obvious errors. Weight, Size, Sharp corners, Motor Count, Cylinder count, Light working.
Inspector 2: Checks for Electrical specific errors. Breakers, Battery hookup, motor/speed controller modifications
Inspector 3: Checks for Pneumatic specific erros. Custom connectors, compressor issues, PSI Gauge, Sollenoid type count.
Inspector 4: Other rules that pertain to the game specifically. Such as “No retroreflective tape allowed on robot” … Insp. 4 checks for things like retroreflective tape. If mouse-bot type things aren’t allowed, this is where they get stopped. Even though the mouse-bot passes everything else.
Sneaking past a stressed inspector is probably not to difficult, but sneaking past one who is a master of the specific components is going to be hard.
It wouldn’t be 1 inspector watching 20 teams, it could easily be 4 inspectors watching 80 teams. With better accuracy at rules being followed.
The problem with having a group of inspectors to inspect robots is there simply aren’t enough people to do it. There are a limited number of inspectors and they need to finish inspecting all the robots in a fairly small time period.
And on more controversial issues it’s usually left up to the head inspector to make the decision. Although I do know the decision has been made even higher up in the past.
I volunteered as an inspector at the Houston Nationals, and the excuses teams tried to use to get around rules were mindbending. Accidental violations are what inspectors are there to detect, the intentional violations simply are against the spirit of FIRST.
One team attempted to use a piece of aluminum as a bumper, arguing that under the rules it was not a “hard material”. (The term was defined two places, once as a material that hurt if you hit it, and once as any wood metal or hard plastic). It took about 15 minutes of discussion with the teams and other inspectors to resolve the dispute.
Another team used old 883 motor controllers in place of the 884s. They “cleverly” disguised these by placing tape over the names. However, two controllers flash differently when no oi is present, and are thus easily identifiable. Even after performing this test, the team denied that they had any 883s on the robot. (By the way, I was overruled on this and they were allowed to keep the 883s)
Another team wired twelve volts and ground to ajacent bolts extending through the bottom of the frame. They argued that they wern’t custom terminal strips because they were only single wires, whereas a strip contained multiple. Either way, exposed power on the underside of a robot can be very dangerous. (The resolution that waas eventually agreed upon: tape over them. ???)
Teams ought to build their robots to conform with the rules, and be willing to modify them if it is found to be illegal.
And please don’t use the excuse that “they allowed this at the last regional.”
See now, there shouldn’t be lee-way in using illegal materials, illegal wiring, etc.
and I liked the idea of specialized inspectors. If you get teams of inspectors each doing a different aspect of the robot, things would go much faster.
Or simply inspect robots thursday afternoon, before the actual games begins.
