You Make The Call (YMTC) is a series of situations where you can be the ref and make the call.
Bluateam arrived at the Magnolia Regional, uncrated Bluabot, and ran their 3 practice rounds on Thursday. In each practice round, Bluabot threw a chain on the right drive train. Bluateam tried to repair the drive train during the day on Thursday but couldn’t get the sprocket spacings and alignment correct. So, Bluateam took their right drive train back to the hotel along with a handful of 3/8" flat washers, a couple of screwdrivers and an adjustable wrench to make some final tweaks. At 4:00 am, Bluateam had the drive train working beautifully so they disassembled it in preparation for Friday morning. On Friday, Bluateam reassembled the drive train and put it on Bluabot. Bluabot swept through the seeding rounds and ultimately won the Magnolia Regional.
This would be against the rules. You’re only allowed to work on your robot as long as the pits are open. What they left with (a dysfunctional drive train) is different from what they came back with (a pile of parts). They had six weeks to get the drive train perfect, as well as the time in the pits.
And furthermore, I don’t believe you’re even allowed to remove parts of your robot from the premises. I believe they say the entire robot specifically, but gracious professionalism would lead one to believe that includes any components of the robot.
[quote="<R09>"]At Events: Teams are allowed to repair, modify or upgrade their competition robots while participating in a FRC event. They may do so only during the period starting with the opening of the Pit area on Thursday and ending at 4:00PM on Saturday. Work may be done on-site in the Pit or
at any facility made available to all teams at the event, e.g., in a team’s repair trailer or a local team’s shop offered to all teams to use.[/quote]
The way I see it, in order to argue this is a legal practice, one would have to demonstrate that teams may remove parts from the venue, and furthermore repair, modify, or upgrade them offsite (spatial), and must also demonstrate that this can be done during hours in which the regional is not being participated in (temporal, i.e. 4:00am, which is incidentally the time I’m posting, seeing as sleep is wildly overrated). On top of that, they’d have to make this little repair shop available to all teams. I would further argue that this openness would have to be advertised “openly and notoriously” such that all teams know of its existence.
There are also two things I want to point out as irrelevant in this determination early on: (1) the fact that Bluateam went on to win, and (2), the fact that the team disassembled the drivetrain again in the hotel in order for their actions to be more legal (because they still removed a functional working part of the robot and repaired/modified it outside of written time and implied space requirements). I don’t believe there is any spatial rule that explicitly says parts of the robot cannot be taken out of the venue, but this is implied and/or stated strongly and repeatedly at every regional.
So, based on those determinations, there are only a few ways out of this being illegal. On the temporal side of the requirements I set forth, one could argue a different definition of “while participating in” from <R09>, but that is stretching it to ludicrous proportions. On the spatial side, one could argue that a precedent for removing parts from the Pit was set with equal opportunity offsite machining being allowed, but this is equally weak because it doesn’t address the problem at hand directly and also goes utterly against what (at least I think) is the spirit of <R09>.This is *quite *illegal.
I agree, the time that the pit is open is just like the build period. Taking the robot back to the hotel is just the same as extending the build period. If bluateam destroys their robot during one of the competition, it is like destroying your robot during a test during the build period, you have to fix it in the time you’re given.
For the reassembly part, I would say you’re allowed to bring spare parts in such as gears with keyways already made by you. If it’s a part of a frame that’s totally busted, bringing a long enough piece for that frame with NO holes or prefabricated. This would be legal in my opinion. The resizing and redrilling of that part of the frame would have to be done in the pit area during the time that the pit is open.
Illegal and not graciously professional to bring the drivetrain of the bot to the hotel and reassemble it back at the regional! The only time I would say you’re allowed to make any modification of your robot OUTSIDE competition time is OFFSEASON after the Championships.
• At Events: Teams are allowed to repair, modify or upgrade their competition robots while participating in a FRC event. They may do so only during the period starting with the opening of the Pit area on Thursday and ending at 4:00PM on Saturday. Work may be done on-site in the Pit or at any facility made available to all teams at the event, e.g., in a team’s repair trailer or a local team’s shop offered to all teams to use.
I’ll bite. I think it’s plausibly legal. This section of the rule clearly defines the period you’re allowed to work on the robot as starting thursday and extending all the way to saturday, so time isn’t an issue, unless you’re assuming that “while participating” restricts the time to while you’re at the event. I don’t think it does, because just after that, the period is specifically noted.
Also, I think the last sentence implies that you are allowed to take parts off site to work on them. A local team’s shop is clearly not expected to be on site, or anywhere in walking distance of the site. So I think the contention that you’re not allowed to take parts off-site is just being assumed because it rarely happens. I don’t think the rules explictly say this anywhere, but proving me wrong would obviously sink my agrument.
The stated workshop here is “the hotel”. If this is being done in the lobby of the hotel, to the great consternation of the staff, I’m sure, then it’s difficult to argue that this space isn’t freely and publicly available to all teams. I don’t know that advertising has that much to do with things, really. If it does, then the issue would still remain if Bluateam ran around announcing “We’re gonna go work on our robot in our hotel lobby! Anyone else that wants to work there is more than welcome to come!”
So, I realize this might seem like an annoying and unfair conclusion, but I think it stems from a very reasonable reading of the rules. I don’t think arguments that “It’s implied that such-and-such” or “Teams just aren’t expected to blah-blah” are really fair. A rookie team showing up at their first event would have little or no prior knowledge of how things typically go and what’s customary. I don’t think arguing from vague intent and unspoken tradition makes rules any clearer.
Specific hours are necessary to provide teams with equal work time. Please be aware of the opening and closing hours of the Pit and Machine Shop posted on the agenda you receive in your Registration Packet. The Pit Administration staff will advise you of corrected hours.
Section 10 also enumerates the hours that the Pits are open and when they are closed. This is a also a safety rule, in addition to a build rule. Having people up working on a robot at 4 am, then going to a competition at 7am and then staying up late working again is a BAD idea. When you operate with that little sleep your brain does not function properly. Drowsyness and powertools do not mix well.
A local team’s shop is clearly not expected to be on site, or anywhere in walking distance of the site.
I know of a team in Richmond that is within walking distance of the VCU Regional, and there are likely more. At the LA regional in 2003, there was a shop that was traveled to the arena. I’m not positive of the details, but I believe that a team arraigned for the machine shop to be there. (Someone who knows about this please fill me in). There are also the teams that are able to afford decked out trailers that are complete machine shops that they tow to each regional they go to. These are team shops on site.
In addition, the hotel has not been announced as available to all teams. The hotel would most likely protest if any such announcement was made, or if teams showed up to do work. Saying that anyone could show up and do work is bunk, because it has not been offered for other teams to use. It is the same as a team going back to their shop to do work, but using the excuse “if any team showed up, they could use the shop.” The willingness to share is not the question, but the lack of the offer.
I say no, this is not legal. However, there should not be an asterisk by the name in the book though. There should not be a case where “they won, but…”
This was team 254. It was not a team shop on site though. They acted as the event machine shop for multiple regionals, and helped countless teams to be able to compete in each event, including my own.
It should also be noted that they passed over going to another regional so they could provide this service to the FIRST community.
Regardless of previous team shops that have been in “on site” it’s possible that other teams shops are not. I know that my team’s shop is a good 15-20 minutes from the Houston regional. If we offer to let teams take advantage of it, it’s still a “team shop”. It could theoretically be just a room at a school somewhere and still count, really. I realize here that I’m wandering from the original question, but I’m attempting to point out how this can be misinterpreted as written, as I see these discussions as opportunities for clarifying rules that can be vague.
As for making it available, what counts? Does it count if you have Pit Admin make an announcement? Do you have to put up flyers? Do you have to personally tell every team at the site and get a signature verifying such? These standards would apply to any other team provided machine shop, so I don’t think it should be too restrictive. A good faith attempt to let other teams know about a site should be enough, really.
Specific hours are necessary to provide teams with equal work time. Please be aware of the opening and closing hours of the Pit and Machine Shop posted on the agenda you receive in your Registration Packet. The Pit Administration staff will advise you of corrected hours.
I’ll agree that this casts much more doubt on things, but it’s not really a rule. This is a statement of policy that still doesn’t really address when you can and can’t work on the robot. It’s a single paragraph in a section that doesn’t deal with building the robot. Also, teams would still have equal time if the “team shop” was open to everyone and had its own specific hours. I don’t think pit hours necessarily identical from regional to regional, so it wouldn’t matter that this wasn’t the case elsewhere.
At any rate, I suppose I’m trying to point out that the rule as written is somewhat lacking. I fail to see why it couldn’t state that robots may only be worked on during the six weeks and during the official Pit times designated at each regional your team is attending, no matter where the work is being done. It’s just as simple and is crystal clear as to meaning and intent.
It’s illegal. But I want to protest the “Illegal! The Magnolia Regional should put an * next to the Bluateam win” option. I think that is too limiting. I want an option that says “Illegal! Bluateam is staffed with a bunch of cheaters! They should be stripped of their title from the Magnolia Regional, cast out into the public square, shackled for a fortnight in the stocks while being forced to listen to Anthony Newley records over and over again, and then given forty lashes with the Cat-o-nine-tails before ever being allowed to set foot into a competition venue again.”
OK, maybe not. But this does bring up one point that has been completely glossed over in the YMTC discussions. We have all been discussing various ways to split hairs to determine if “Action XX” violates “Rule YY” or not. But what happens when it is determined that a team HAS violated the rules? We all understand that one of the basic precepts of FIRST is to inspire students by exposing them to professional [engineering] practices and behavior. In the real world - and in the real engineering profession - there are consequences when you violate the rules, and those consequences are sometimes severe.
FIRST has usually specified what happens when you violate a game play rule during a match (i.e. a penalty flag is thrown, your robot is disabled, etc.). But what about the rules that impact our behavior OFF the field? If a team builds their robot in an prohibited location, or keeps working on robot parts after the robot ship date, or engages in just plain unsportsmanlike conduct in the stadium stands, or builds the robot with an illegal part and intentionally disguises it so that it won’t be found by inspectors, what should happen to the team? Is it enough for all the other teams to stand around and express their disapproval and say that they didn’t behave with gracious professionalism? Or is something more concrete required? Should the engineers involved (for the moment, I am considering violations where most or all of the team were involved or at least aware of the situation) have to publicly acknowledge a lapse in ethics and their failure to provide appropriate examples for the students on the team? Should the team have to sit out one season of competition (or their next planned competition event)? Should they return any awards that may have been won as a result of the violation? Is there an appropirate consequence that is not a meaningless slap on the wrist, but also not so draconian that it drives a team away from the competition. Ideally, it is a consequence that is turned into a learning experience for the team, and ultimately it becomes a demonstration of ethical behavior (i.e. “we violated the rules; we have to acknowledge the violation; accept and serve any penalties; then recover, become better and wiser, and move on”). But what possible penalties are appropriate and suitable?
What do you think?
(no matter what, I still think that they should have to listen to the Anthony Newley recordings)
There is nothing in the rules that prevent a team from working on their robot 24 hrs a day during a competition. The issue is where it is being worked on. It can’t be in the pits because they have certain hours. It must be in a “team shop” that is open for others to use. I believe that would be a mobile shop equipped with tools, power and insurance or an official team shop with the same qualifications. If a team could meet those requirements in a hotel room then it would be legal. However to have a hotel give permission for this would be highly unlikely.
This said and all of the above met then I would have to say that it is legal (sorry Dave). The rules seem to allow this to be done. The only issue I have is that you are only allowed to bring raw materials into the pits that has not been fabricated, which is against the idea of allowing you to work off site. You are also not suppose to take your robot off site so how could you work on it in another teams shop? This is a conflict of the rules.
Funny, Dave…I thought you’d say Gerardo records. After all, you said “That’s NOT Pimp!”
The part-making is illegal, for the reasons mentioned above.
As for what should happen to a team which breaks the rules off the field…that’s a good question. IMHO, since FIRST isn’t all about the robot, things like building after hours shouldn’t affect other awards such as Imagery or Leadership in Controls, unless of course the infraction led to the team winning that award.
The hard question, however, is what to do if it word about Bluateam comes out mid-regional. If I ran the world, I could see one of two things happening…
a) Allow Bluateam to compete, but they’re done after qualification matches. After all, blocking them from the field screws over the other team in that alliance. And while I’ve seen 2-on-1 matches go the way of the solo robot in 2004, I wouldn’t place it as a probable thing.
b) Redo the qualification match schedule without Bluateam in it. (Having worked Robot Rodeo, I know this can be done.) Solves the problem of screwing up the other team, but it also means all Bluateam can do is sit on their hands.
Tweet! Upon further consideration, the umpire has determined that this is an illegal pitch. Lucien has thrown us a spitball. The pitch is called as a “ball.” There is a full count, and the runner will advance to first on the next ball.
Under the stated rules for YMTC, each of us are to act as the “referee” and evaluate and render a judgement regarding a hypothetical game situation. The situation offered in this example is one in which the questioned behavior takes place off the field. As such, the opinion of the “referee” is irrelevent, as actions taking place off the field (and in particular, outside the event venue) are outside the jurisdiction of the referees. Such violations are to be addressed by the judges (if it involves a possible award) and/or the field manager and/or the senior FIRST representative on site. Under the terms of YMTC we are not taking on any of those roles, therefore, our discussions on this question are moot.
Nice try Lucien, you almost had me going there for a while!
-dave
(OK, all joking aside, I was quite serious in my prior post when I asked about appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations. I would be very interested in some discourse on this question)
Regarding consequences, I would be in favor of simply trying to undo any advantage in future matches, and then ask the team to choose a representative to take up the mic and make a public apology. I feel like in this case, and in almost all cases, any “cheating” is accidental-- particularly with a rookie team.
In terms of legality, I’m still not clear on this one. Bluateam left the competitions site with a gearbox, and brought it to their hotel. They played with it at their hotel until they knew how to fix it, and then completely dismantled it. The next day, using what they learned, they put the whole thing back together in the pits and went to compete. What if they had taken apart the drive train into its component pieces before leaving the field? Would it be illegal for team X to bring a bunch of bolts, scrap, and PVC to their hotel room just to try to figure things out, and then assemble their actual device in the pits the next day?
And then what is the legality of fixing robot code at competition late into the night?
Steve,
From “The Robot, Rev C” “• At Events: Teams are allowed to repair, modify or upgrade their competition robots while
participating in a FRC event. They may do so only during the period starting with the opening of
the Pit area on Thursday and ending at 4:00PM on Saturday. Work may be done on-site in the Pit or
at any facility made available to all teams at the event, e.g., in a team’s repair trailer or a local
team’s shop offered to all teams to use.”
I believe the way it is stated is that work on the robot be only at competitions and as you have noted, the pits are only open for specific hours. Many of the regionals announce that all work must stop on the robot in “fifteen minutes” counting down to zero. The machine shop also stops at these times, therefore if the pits are closed and the machine shop is closed, work must stop.
As you notice the rules state open of pit and 4:00 pm on Saturday. There is no cutoff times during stated in the rules. You must stop work in the pits when they close but there is no mention or relation to the local team shops. I believe the intent to be pit hours but the rules do not state that.
The code has diffrent rules. FIRST let you keep the OI past ship date explicitly to continue to work on the code.
FIRST told us durring kickoff to use common sense and gracious professionalism to understand the intent behind the rules. They even put that IN the rules.
I think it is clear that FIRST did not intend teams to take parts of the robot off site and work on it all night at their hotel. It doesn’t matter the rules as written may be fuzzy, the intent has been consistently made clear.
Here’s my thing… Where is this clear intent coming from? We’re all vets here, so we have a reasonably good idea what’s up, but rookies don’t have this benefit. I’m all for not reading rules like a lawyer, but that rule just screams to me to be cleared up. If a rookie or layman came across that, they’d read it that they’re allowed to work on the robot whenever, as long as they can work in the Pits, or at a publicly available team shop. It states there, quite clearly, that you’re allowed to work on your robot that entire time. This is one instance where I don’t think it’s onerous to clarify the rule. If you can’t work on the robot the entire time, just say you’re only allowed to work during official pit hours, no matter where. Call a spade a spade, not “that black suit, oh yeah, and everyone knows clubs don’t count, right?”
Also, my profs always told me that part of engineering thinking is not artificially constricting yourself with assumptions that arent necessary. Don’t add things to the problem that aren’t there.
Do the judges have the will or knowledge to act in this capacity? We already know that we cannot expect the judges to know every aspect of every rule, and I can’t be the only one able to imagine a situation where the offense described wins the team an award:
*Bluateam captain, Joey Blue, when meeting with Judges Bill Doesntknowalltherules and Susan Sucessfulbusinesswoman, says, “Well, Judges, we showed up with a poorly functioning right drive train, but after some long hours in the hotel last night, we were able to get it working really well!”
Judges Bill and Susan, duly impressed by Bluateam’s extraordinary effort, recommend them for the special judges award for “Going the Extra Mile”. *
This said, I have to admit that I don’t know what exactly goes on behind closed doors in those smoke-filled judge’s meetings. Perhaps they are savvy individuals who can see through the smokescreens of well-intentioned youths. Perhaps they’re guided by representatives from FIRST who aren’t so overworked simply trying to keep the competition going on schedule that they have the time and information to point out this type of violation.
