G40 change?

[Jhultink]

G40
TEAMS may not extend any body part into the SAFETY ZONE during the MATCH.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL.



I'm just curious to see if anyone thinks G40 should be modified at all because of how often it is called and how many points are involved.

And do you think teams will correct for week 2?

[Jonathan Norris]

I'm just curious to see if anyone thinks G40 should be modified at all because of how often it is called and how many points are involved.

And do you think teams will correct for week 2?

I think a change should be made, but not to the penalty itself. Move the human player zones back a foot, and make the zone deeper.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I think a change should be made, but not to the penalty itself. Move the human player zones back a foot, and make the zone deeper.

While I'd be OK with this, I've been preaching all season to my team that this will be a 'killer' penalty and that many teams will incur it.

[Navid Shafa]

Auburn Mountainview
Match: Final-2

G40 and 100 total points in fouls swing the match. Going into a third match now...

[BrendanB]

I also agree the box should be moved back by 1 foot. Teams also need to make sure their human players KNOW THE RULES! So many teams just throw the HP into the position at the last second without much thought or in the heat of the moment they forget what they are doing (reaching too far).

I hope a long term solution is that the box ends 1 foot away from the field border.

In the meantime before each match the Human Players need a refresher on what they should and should NOT do.

[engunneer]

At Granite State District, there was yellow tape on the top of the safety barrier to mark the G40 line. I think it is clear where the line is, and the human needs to be smart enough not to cross it. Scouts are watching!

[Mr V]

Auburn Mountainview
Match: Final-2

G40 and 100 total points in fouls swing the match. Going into a third match now...

Note only 50 of those foul points were due to a G40.

In general the number of G40 penalties incurred and AMW seemed to go down as the event progressed.

[JosephC]

We need a solution besides moving the zones back a foot. Doing that would put the HPs directly in the way of the Field Reset people taking balls to the other side of the field at smaller events. There already wasn't enough room at Centerline.

[Navid Shafa]

Point values need to be changed. In case you haven't been convinced yet, Zondag said it best:


The Average OPR is less than one standard deviation above zero.
A single technical foul is worth more than 2 matches worth of average team contribution. This is completely out of scale with what is appropriate for penalty scaling.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Point values need to be changed. In case you haven't been convinced yet, Zondag said it best:

While I understand Jims statistics, The penalty points are that high because FIRST does not want the HP anywhere near the robots.

I say, teach your HP well ... and ensure that your alliance HPs know the rules as well. Scouts are watching ;)

[Navid Shafa]

While I understand Jims statistics, The penalty points are that high because FIRST does not want the HP anywhere near the robots.

I say, teach your HP well ... and ensure that your alliance HPs know the rules as well. Scouts are watching ;)

I don't want any HP to robot contact either. So many of these HP's know the rules though. It's easy to make this mistake even while paying close attention to your own actions. The point value is just too high...

[Ian Curtis]

The fact that there are lots of G40 fouls means that students are being exposed to a risk that FIRST wanted to avoid because it is potentially unsafe. Right now, students are putting themselves in an unsafe situation because they didn't read/understand the rules. After this happens, teams get penalties, match results change, students get upset, refs get a bad rap (they don't want to be deciding winners!), and generally nobody wins. We can continue proceeding this way, but if we do, we continue putting students at risk.

Something more fundamental has to change than just the points/foul. The risk level needs to be reassessed (which would justify adjusting the foul points), OR we need to remove students from a scenario in which they are at risk (move the HP stations back, for example).

[Navid Shafa]

Something more fundamental has to change than just the points/foul. The risk level needs to be reassessed (which would justify adjusting the foul points), OR we need to remove students from a scenario in which they are at risk (move the HP stations back, for example).

I absolutely agree with you. Safety is certainly at the top of everyone's list, but something fundamental does need to change.

I don't care what solution they pursue, but FIRST has to address this soon.

[Racer26]

You know, I'm just not that concerned about the safety aspect of the reason this rule exists. Students come into contact with an energized robot all the time in the pits and at home with little more than a pair of safety glasses (if that) to protect them.

A rule like this to prevent the outside chance of some incidental contact on the field? Way disproportionate to the actual risk.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

You know, I'm just not that concerned about the safety aspect of the reason this rule exists. Students come into contact with an energized robot all the time in the pits and at home with little more than a pair of safety glasses (if that) to protect them.

A rule like this to prevent the outside chance of some incidental contact on the field? Way disproportionate to the actual risk.

Just remember that the human player introducing the ball (and thus possibly coming into contact with the robot) may not be from the team that made the robot, and thus may not know all of the dangers presented.

[Racer26]

The truth of the matter though, is that in 12 years of FRC, I think I might have seen a human player actually touch a robot on the field mid-match once.

I haven't seen any human players even come close to touching a robot this year.

[Qbot2640]

I think that for any team with any reasonable attention to how things are going, the "problem" has just been fixed...it was an awareness thing, more than anything else. I still expect some teams to violate - but anyone reading CD now knows to be careful.

[Zuelu562]

In fact, I was discussing this particular penalty among other technical foul producing rules with other volunteers (all but 1 a current mentor) during lunch on Saturday at GSDE. One of the things we came up with was making it a regular foul for extending into the safety zone, while maintaining a technical for going INTO the field, intended or consequential extension into the safety zone, as well as situations where safety of the human was a concern. This was called A TON at GSDE and influenced the result of several matches (IIRC, an alliance who did not complete a cycle won a match due to this penalty).

The point of many rules that produce technicals is "SERIOUSLY. DON'T. DO. THIS." I have a feeling these calls will be happening less and less as the word spreads and teams figure out how to avoid them, but this reasoning applies to many other rules - If you're getting a technical for it, why did you do it in the first place?

[JosephC]

The safety zone needs to be more obvious then a tiny little piece of yellow tape. Sure it's easy not to produce a G40 if you stare at the yellow tape and make sure not to cross it, but then you aren't looking at the robot/field, which is far far more dangerous.

[MechEng83]

The safety zone needs to be more obvious then a tiny little piece of yellow tape. Sure it's easy not to produce a G40 if you stare at the yellow tape and make sure not to cross it, but then you aren't looking at the robot/field, which is far far more dangerous.

This.

[turkbot]

I understand why people may be frustrated with the G40 rule. While it may be difficult for human players to know exactly where the yellow tape is while inbounding, the rule is in place for their protection. Safety (along with gracious professionalism) is a vital aspect of FIRST. Learning safety and practicing it makes it become a lifelong habit.

Yes, the penalty is sever, but it is highly preventable...just like the potential for an injury while interacting with a robot.

As for a reason why this call occurring, in order to correctly capture/enter the possessions, the refs will watch the human player enter the ball at the beginning of each cycle. Additionally, as it revolves around the safety of people (not robots) a great amount of importance for this should be prioritized.

I personally don't foresee a change in the rule...so human players should practice inbounding accordingly. Many teams have a "pit-list" to prepare their robots for matches....human players should have the same and add this at the top.

[dradel]

How about we just accept the rule and the layout of the field and take a little responsibility for our actions???

Oh wait we don't teach that anymore do we!!??

[JosephC]

The biggest problem is the yellow tape isn't even right in front of the human player, most of the time when I see HP's toss the ball in its to their sides. Even a bright piece of string would greatly reduce the G40's we're seeing.

[Basel A]

The truth of the matter though, is that in 12 years of FRC, I think I might have seen a human player actually touch a robot on the field mid-match once.

I haven't seen any human players even come close to touching a robot this year.

I saw a HP toss a ball into a wrong-coloured robot, then reach into the field to grab it back, before a referee stopped him. Teams could be much better informed about the rule.

[dradel]

Again responsibility for ones actions.

[orangemoore]

I would say that the safety zone made the harder to follow. It was a lot easier to tell the line you couldn't pass when it ran the entire field.

[Caleb Sykes]

Again responsibility for ones actions.

I'm all for this.

Here is the problem as I see it though:
The penalty is not proportional to the danger level/strategic gain, it is in extreme excess of it. For all of you that are saying the points awarded for a technical foul is fine, why is the number 50 so perfect for you? If the human players really are in such extreme danger when they cross the line by 1/8", why not make it a 100 point penalty? Or a yellow card? The reason that this is ridiculous is because the entire game would then be defined by the one little mistake instead of what the game is actually about. What I believe is that the 50-point technical foul for this penalty is already defining the game. Just look at the statistics on the percentage of matches decided by penalties to see what I mean. The punishment for breaking a rule should be proportional to the danger level or strategic gain that results from breaking this rule. There is almost no strategic advantage to crossing the line a little bit, and the dangers are basically nonexistent (since G41 covers all of the dangerous interaction). If the penalty for crossing the line were increased to 100 points, does anyone think that it would occur less often? I don't think it would, since the teams that know and understand this rule are already doing everything they can to stop it from happening, and the teams that don't know this rule still wouldn't know it after the change. In contrast, if the penalty were reduced to 20 points, does anyone realistically think that this would somehow encourage breaking this rule? I certainly don't. The HP that gets this penalty is going to feel terrible after the match either way. If she doesn't, then having a 50 point instead of a 20 point penalty will not make her feel worse.

Let's play a game that is defined by robots, not a game that is defined by somewhat arbitrary imaginary planes.

[yash101]

Live with it! It only makes the game more fun and challenging!!! :) :)

[Anupam Goli]

Live with it! It only makes the game more fun and challenging!!! :) :)

Not sure how 50 pt tech fouls every match make the game more fun and challenging, but maybe i'm just not in touch with what high schoolers consider fun nowadays. ;)

[CaptainDanger]

the only reason a lot of G40 penalties have been given out is because lots of the human players haven't been practising staying within a certain spatial limit and don't completely understand what is expected of them. As a team, it's important that you go over all the rules of the game with your entire drive team. Just as drivers know what penalties they should be making sure to avoid, HP's need to know too! If it means sitting down and reading the game manual, then do it!
As an HP myself, I'm a little scared but hey at least I know about the dangers of incurring this penalty and am conscious of the fact that I need to avoid getting a G40 at all costs!

[Jeffrafa]

Something that I think is significant about G40 violations that doesn't seem to be discussed much is that the definition of the plane that incurred the penalty was changed significantly in the 2/18 rule update. Originally it was the edge of the field, a pretty well-defined feature that was 22" away from the edge of the HP zone box. The HP barrier was constructed to further emphasize the need for HP's to stay a safe distance away, and I suspect the 22" was chosen based upon keeping them both sufficiently far away and at a distance that would be difficult to unintentionally violate.

The 2/18 update decreased the distance to penalty from 22" to 12", a 45% reduction, without also moving the HP zone back to compensate. Ironically, the change was made to reduce penalties from G21, robots extending out of the field. On a related note, it bugs me that a G21 violation of a robot extending into the safety zone is only a foul, while the G40 is a technical foul - to me the risks, and ease of mistake are identical, and so these penalties should match.

Finally, it seems like the taped safety zone is difficult to judge. I have not seen a field firsthand, or stood where the referees do, but it seems like their perspective would be poor for assessing small incursions unless they stick their head into the safety zone. The only way to clearly watch for G21 and G40 incursions is to look down the edge of the field, with your eye in-line with the yellow tape, which can only be done safely from the ends of the field, not where the refs stand. There will always be judgement calls to be made by refs, but this one seems especially difficult from their vantage point.

I fully understand the way the rule is written, and I think all human players ought to know this rule clearly and avoid violating it at all costs, but I also think it is too easy of a mistake to make, is too difficult to judge based on markings and perspective, and far too costly in foul points assessed.

[dradel]

Why is it no one is saying " hey the rule is what the rule is and if I screw up and get hit with a G40 I will own it and learn from it"

As for the 50 point penalty... It needs to sting to get the point across. And for those of you that feel it "isn't fare" fare is what you pay to get on a bus. Life isn't fare accept it and move forward

[Racer26]

Something that I think is significant about G40 violations that doesn't seem to be discussed much is that the definition of the plane that incurred the penalty was changed significantly in the 2/18 rule update. Originally it was the edge of the field, a pretty well-defined feature that was 22" away from the edge of the HP zone box. The HP barrier was constructed to further emphasize the need for HP's to stay a safe distance away, and I suspect the 22" was chosen based upon keeping them both sufficiently far away and at a distance that would be difficult to unintentionally violate.

The 2/18 update decreased the distance to penalty from 22" to 12", a 45% reduction, without also moving the HP zone back to compensate. Ironically, the change was made to reduce penalties from G21, robots extending out of the field. On a related note, it bugs me that a G21 violation of a robot extending into the safety zone is only a foul, while the G40 is a technical foul - to me the risks, and ease of mistake are identical, and so these penalties should match.

Finally, it seems like the taped safety zone is difficult to judge. I have not seen a field firsthand, or stood where the referees do, but it seems like their perspective would be poor for assessing small incursions unless they stick their head into the safety zone. The only way to clearly watch for G21 and G40 incursions is to look down the edge of the field, with your eye in-line with the yellow tape, which can only be done safely from the ends of the field, not where the refs stand. There will always be judgement calls to be made by refs, but this one seems especially difficult from their vantage point.

I fully understand the way the rule is written, and I think all human players ought to know this rule clearly and avoid violating it at all costs, but I also think it is too easy of a mistake to make, is too difficult to judge based on markings and perspective, and far too costly in foul points assessed.

I lost count of the number of times a ref or field reset volunteer reached into the safety zone to retrieve a ball for a human player at GTRW. Also, I frequently saw refs position themselves as you suggest, looking down the safety zone line to assess incursions, thereby putting their head in the safety zone, AND taking their attention off the action on the field (making them miss possessions).

But its OK as long as the kids are kept safe...

Seriously. I think the best way to fix it is to nuke G40, and let G21 play with the safety zone, and G41 cover human interactions. That would give the refs far less to pay attention to with HPs and allow them to score possessions better.

[thefro526]

One of my biggest concerns this past weekend was the possibility of our Human Player, and/or one of our alliances Human Players being assessed a G40 Technical Foul, and thankfully it only happened once, and it was by a partner, but it still hurt.

To actively counter the overall bad situation that is G40, I instructed our HP to sit the ball on the safety rail and then 'tap' it off the rail into the robot, making it pretty obvious that he wasn't anywhere near the yellow safety zone line. When not doing that, all other in-bounding was done by standing back and doing a short toss over the field wall, which again, made it obvious that he wasn't anywhere near the safety zone border. If the rule isn't changed, we'll probably keep this up until something better presents itself - although it's kind of annoying to have to do something in such a way that makes it obvious that you're doing it 'right'.

On the subject of possible changes, I don't see why the entire safety zone isn't taped out in yellow and/or caution tape, rather than the current 2" wide line. If the entire safety zone were marked out on top of the rail, I think it'd be much easier to keep track of, and actively avoid any intrusions into that zone.

It'd also be nice if the each of the HP boxes were a bit wider, since their current depth severely limits movement inside, and you've got to be very, very aware of where exactly the rear most limit of the box is. Part of this is strategic, it'd obviously be easier to work with the ball (specifically catching it) if the box were a bit bigger - but another part of it is safety. I told our Human player (and drivers) that if they felt like they were going to get hurt, injured, hit with a ball, etc, to step out of the box - but I don't know if anyone else made it so obvious to others that the boxes limits go out the window when personal safety is involved... Thankfully the refs at our event understood this logic, and didn't comment on any actions that were taken to avoid a ball or robot, so I can't complain much more here.

[Steve W]

In past games human players were closer to the field and had smaller,more difficult places to stand. There was a rule that another robot could not interfere while loading. This is another way of helping us with the safety issue. I did not see (doesn't mean that it oesn't happen) robots over the barrier when loading. To have the HP load a robot that is not being bashed by another to prevent them loading the safety factor is huge. Just think, even with the existing rules HP's can get hurt by flying pieces from robots being hit and parts breaking. Put in a no touch loading zone. This will increase on field action with more robots being loaded and fix the safety issue. Remove safety zone for HP's but retain the no reach over field barrier.

[Jon Stratis]

As a concept... How about changing the penalty to a foul (20 points) for encroachment into the safety zone, and adding a severe penalty (yellow or red card?) for actual contact with a robot?

[PandaHatMan]

There needs to be some change. Right now the boundary is a bit fuzzy. Sure it's a definite line 12" from the edge of the field, but space is hard to judge without a plane. I know the rule is there for safety, but it should be safety within reason.

While attending CIR, our team took a tour of the Cat plants. They have massive robots to reduce the workload on humans and increase accuracy. The employees work right alongside the robots, but still have clear boundaries, rules, and regulations. If you haven't been to a Cat plant, they plaster safety all over their buildings.

[BBray_T1296]

fare is what you pay to get on a bus. Life isn't fare accept it and move forward

Homophones. Getcha every time :rolleyes:

While I agree that it should be on the human player to know the rules and behave accordingly, no matter how obscure the boundary is, I don't mind admitting that it is kind of ridiculous how many matches are being affected by these extreme penalties instead of how the robots actually perform on the field.

[Squillo]

I am surprised that there wasn't much hullabaloo over the rule change in the first place. I'm sure SOME robots were designed specifically to COMPLY with the rule as originally written, AND to be fed by a human in compliance with the original rule, and will now have much more difficulty getting properly "fed" (because the human can no longer extend arms as far) because the rule was changed to help those who didn't plan and design properly in the first place.

Annoying. I'm not sure whether this is going to be a problem for our team - we've just finished our practice bot, since we don't compete until 3/27, but I'm sure it must be a problem for some (witness all the fouls).

How was it fair for the GDC to make this change so late? Apparently they wanted to avoid the robot fouls and figured it was easier to change human behavior than robot behavior. (Not so sure, now...) But I still think it's unfair for the robots designed not to extend past the field edge, but who (therefore) need their players to be as close as they were originally allowed to be, to load right.

[Joohoo]

I would say two things on this topic:

1) Its week 1 therefore all these silly penalties get fleshed out on CD and by other means. Now every HP is going to be very aware of these rules by those teams that choose to be well informed and the number of times this is broken generally goes down.

2) As for the Technical Foul being 50 points. The reasoning in my head is that with technical fouls there needs to be almost no incentive to break these rules. In my head and in the head of every good coach there should be a quick list of rules that I am ok with breaking if you can gain points in the end or gain a strategic advantage. There should in theory be no way to net positive points in one cycle while incurring a technical foul. So the 50 points is very deliberate and if anything is too small (with a 60pt perfect cycle). Safety being one of the most important aspects to such a large organization dealing with students there needs to be no way that a good coach/mentor/student can see a reason or incentive to incurring a G40 violation.



That being said lets see if we can make it easier to see the safety zone please ;)

[Mr. Van]

If G40 is about safety, then make it so that it is nearly physically impossible for a human player to go outside of the safety zone. Put the safety feature in the field, not in an invisible wall that you shouldn't go across. The best solution would be a physical barrier, but this is most likely not possible, so just move the human player zones back 8 - 12 inches. 90% of the fouls would not occur. Done.

When we used to have to stand behind a line during autonomous, the rule was "stand behind the line" meaning the places where you contacted the floor were behind the line, not that the line defined an invisible plane that you could not cross. This is the case with just about any sport or other "rule" like this that I can think of. Just move the player boxes back.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[Zuelu562]

It'd also be nice if the each of the HP boxes were a bit wider, since their current depth severely limits movement inside, and you've got to be very, very aware of where exactly the rear most limit of the box is.

One of my issues (and probably FIRST's) issue with this is that there isn't that much room to move already near the FTA/Scorer's Table (unless it manages to get a good distance from the field barrier) and in some venues, especially some district events, it will be nigh impossible to extend them, GSDE being one.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Or human players could just not cross into the safety zone. Seriously, it's not that hard.

[thefro526]

One of my issues (and probably FIRST's) issue with this is that there isn't that much room to move already near the FTA/Scorer's Table (unless it manages to get a good distance from the field barrier) and in some venues, especially some district events, it will be nigh impossible to extend them, GSDE being one.

Agreed, there aren't more than a few inches of free space that can be added to the those specific boxes, if there's any space at all - but in the case of the driver's station boxes, (specifically the part that wraps around) and the boxes opposite the scoring table, I think we could get away with another 6-12" of depth without hurting things too much.

Another possible solution is to rewrite the boxes constraints to something like "A human player must be in contact with the floor of their box at all times, momentary contact with the floor outside of the box will not be penalized as long as some part of the HP's body is in contact with the floor in the box" - which would allow an HP to move a bit more within the confines of their box, without necessarily having to extend the boxes limits.

[jman4747]

As purely a safety issue is it not more safe to rely LESS on the person not to cross the line? Also in terms of safety, how many of those students who got a penalty were in direct risk of injury? How many were injured? Are the penalties about a rule or actual safety?

Solution: Move the red/blue piece of tape a foot back. Then your air wall protecting you from the robot is a foot bigger.

Obviously people crossed it quite a bit regardless of this penalty, and by the way a lot of FRC teams don't use CD and won't be too aware of this. I bet many will tell their guy, "stand in the red box and throw the ball in, don't touch the robot" less than 10min before their first match. So if the tape is farther back that guy is that much more safe.

[Oblarg]

When we used to have to stand behind a line during autonomous, the rule was "stand behind the line" meaning the places where you contacted the floor were behind the line, not that the line defined an invisible plane that you could not cross.

Moreover, every rule I've ever seen involving invisible planes that you can't cross has been terrible (2008 line violations, anyone?).

[Mr. Tatorscout]

Why is it no one is saying " hey the rule is what the rule is and if I screw up and get hit with a G40 I will own it and learn from it"

As for the 50 point penalty... It needs to sting to get the point across. And for those of you that feel it "isn't fare" fare is what you pay to get on a bus. Life isn't fare accept it and move forward

It's really more a matter of being reasonable and logical rather than fair.

Saying LIFE ISN'T FAIR is frankly pretty silly and irrelevant. Following that logic I guess the judges should start all of your matches assessing your team a fifty point penalty because they want to reinforce your opinion that life isn't fair.

The point of the game component of FRC is to have fun and entertain audiences. When great game play gets shafted due to illogical penalties it ceases to be fun and it also can change the dynamics of the flow of the game.

It's pretty clear that judges backed off in Alamo on Saturday because even falling down out of the zone didn't incur a penalty. So, it would seem that the officials agreed with most of the folks on this thread. Inadvertently stepping across the line when a big ball comes flying at you is hardly the same as hitting inside the frame of a bot with a big claw to cause potential permanent damage. So, logic dictates that they change the rules to make the foul points commensurate with the foul committed or at least change the enforcement of them.

[EricH]

but in the case of the driver's station boxes, (specifically the part that wraps around) and the boxes opposite the scoring table, I think we could get away with another 6-12" of depth without hurting things too much.

At larger venues, yep. But at IE, no way. There was barely enough room to move a robot down that side of the field--and then queuing sent 'em during matches near the end--which put 'em into the box a bit.

[yash101]

I believe there is no need for a change. It adds another game mechanic -- how good is your human player at controlling him/herself?. It is also worth to mention that these technical fouls will happen to every team -- at least every team that hasn't trained their HPs. This also adds the game mechanic that the robot should be able to grab the ball coming from the HP, no matter how fast it is coming or which direction it is coming. That will allow the human player to step back and play more peacefully, decreasing the possibility of this foul. I guess the only possible change would be a reduction in the penalty because a technical foul is quite heavy on the points.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Why is it no one is saying " hey the rule is what the rule is and if I screw up and get hit with a G40 I will own it and learn from it"

As for the 50 point penalty... It needs to sting to get the point across. And for those of you that feel it "isn't fare" fare is what you pay to get on a bus. Life isn't fare accept it and move forward

I have been. We trained our HP under the new rule. Fine, I'll deal with it. I'll also be incredibly irritated if our partners get that penalty.

But enforcing it is inconsistent at best. Invisible planes never work. And FIRST should know this by now and not create rules that rely on them.

And while fare may be what you pay to get on a bus FAIR is what rules in a HS robotics competition should aim to be.

[Mr. Tatorscout]

I believe there is no need for a change. It adds another game mechanic -- I guess the only possible change would be a reduction in the penalty because a technical foul is quite heavy on the points.
Yash, you just contradicted yourself and proved the point of most of the people on the thread. Once we spend a few minutes thinking about the effects most reasonable people realize that a technical foul for this infraction that is overly subjective is too extreme.

[jman4747]

I thought this was about safety? Simply writing off the issue as, "you don't know the rules, too bad" doesn't cut it. All that statement applies to is fouls. If you don't want people to cross the line make it harder to cross. We're basically arguing about how hard it is to move 4 pieces of tape. Don't re-write the book.