How can you help GDC make this game better?

[billylo]

Let's get our creative juices going. It's week 1 and make no mistakes, it's a tough game for students, mentors, volunteering referees and others.

If you would suggest the top 3 changes you can imagine so that week 2-champs would be better, what would they be?

Reminder: keep them brief, supported by facts, and include expected benefits. It will help all of us digest the ideas.

Ready? Go!

[MooreteP]

1) Scorekeepers separate from refs.
However there would need to be a reconfiguration of the touchscreen input system, possibly adding two more screens. And you thought fixing the High Goals was expensive. They could always have a separate scorekeeper paper sheet like last year with the load cell debacle, but that may increase reset times. We used paper at the week zero Suffield Shakedown and it was quick enough, but it messes with the value of the Real Time Scoring. Ensuring that the pedestal lights up the moment a ball is scored in a goal is critical to the flow of the game.

2) Adjust penalty values.
Reduce G40 to a foul. Call possession of the ball by an opposing alliance.
I saw many instances of opposing alliances touching a ball twice or "herding" during defensive moves. This will improve the flow of the game by making it harder for a defending Robot to recklessly attack any Robot in possession of a ball.

3) More cowbell.
'nuff said.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Proposed wording for updated rules on inbounding:

<Proposed G21> ROBOTS may not extend outside the HUMAN PLAYER BARRIER.

The current rule prohibits extension beyond the SAFETY ZONE. The HP barrier is the 20" wide zone above the field perimeter pipes.)

<Proposed G40> TEAMS may not extend any body part into the FIELD during the MATCH.

The current rule prohibits reaching beyond the SAFETY ZONE.

G41 (no HP/robot contact, no HP/Ball/Robot contact) should remain as is.

This would make the HP barrier a "transition/neutral zone" where either robots or HP's could reach, but there could be no contact between them. You still couldn't lay a ball directly into a robot.

I think the same objective could be accomplished by re-defining the SAFETY ZONE to match the HUMAN PLAYER BARRIER.

[Tom Line]

It must be emphasized to every single ref during training that one robot cannot force another to take a penalty. This has long been a core tenet of FIRST except in very special cases. Being pushed into goals, into opposition balls, and out of field perimeter by another robot should not be a foul.

In addition, the rule regarding penetration inside the bumper perimeter needs to be enforced correctly. Damage needs to occur, or it needs to be clearly intentional to generate a foul.

[Ken Patton]

1. Need to free up the Refs to allow them to watch the action - not manage the sidelines and the input devices. It was sadly comical to watch how overloaded the hard-working refs were at Southfield, with keeping the iPad stands from tipping over, handing balls to human players, getting out of the way of reset workers, occasionally ducking from errant shots, watching the action, communicating to each other, and entering input into their iPads. It made for inconsistent calls because many infractions were unobserved, while other infractions were observed and called. Solution: scorekeepers with iPads set back from the field.

2. Improve consistency of calls by better training for the Refs in three specific types of infractions: opposing teams controlling another alliance's ball (please just be consistent), inconsequential robot protrusion outside the field (either call it all the time for all robots, or let teams get away with it when it has no impact on a catch or an inbound), and intrusion into other robots (Southfield was horribly inconsistent on this). Solution: better training for refs who are enabled by 1. to watch the action.

3. Improve consistency of the lighting up of the pedestals. The "reaction time" of the field seemed to range from instantaneous (no visible delay at all) to long (~~5 seconds), with the occasional situation where hundreds of people in the stands are shouting "ball!" and the refs hardly seem to notice. (We had an FTA tell us to take the ball off an unlit pedestal after waiting ~15 seconds one time). Solution: be consistent in how you light up the pedestal, every time, and move the pedestals to somewhere more visible to all (I heard someone suggest this yesterday - a great idea).

Consistency is the most important thing in my opinion.

Ken

[EricH]

It was sadly comical to watch how overloaded the hard-working refs were at Southfield, with keeping the iPad stands from tipping over, handing balls to human players, getting out of the way of reset workers, occasionally ducking from errant shots, watching the action, communicating to each other, and entering input into their iPads. It made for inconsistent calls because many infractions were unobserved, while other infractions were observed and called. Solution: scorekeepers with iPads set back from the field.

Ken, I WISH those touchscreens were iPads! Then we might not have to deal with lag, and maybe the pedestal issues would be resolved.

I also think that two more refs would be very handy, focusing on human actions, but that might just be me.

[DGMentor]

A lot of good action in Week 1. It appeared to me that the "strategy" of upsetting apposing alliance robots was somewhat successful resulting in survival of the fittest. Not sure if that meets the GP goal of FRC though. Maybe increase number of balls on the field to give the robots in waiting something else to do. Make your robots very durable and ready to take some big hits is suggested. :)

[Peter Matteson]

1. Make the human player box bigger and further from the field. A 6 foot tall hp can easily violate the line.

2. Add 2 refs to call HP violations. HPs are grabbing balls off the pedestal before it lights up in addition to violating the tape line.

3. Make it clear to field reset they are an integral part of the game and train them well before the start of the first match.

My suggestion to just make it better, are you listening IRI committee?

Allow multiple balls to be played at once in teleop, but make the trade off if you have multiple balls on the field you lose the bonus cycle. You will see real strategy discussions and variations on game play and end game if this was the case...

[Mark Sheridan]

Bring back the 2013's safety net. I hope FIRST still has some. It would ease the burden of returning the ball to play. Only the human players stand inside, and there are openings to impound the ball at the start of the cycle. Also put a net behind the goals to catch shots and make it easier for the volunteers.

This may not work, there are teams with launchers that would obliterate last years net.

[mgurgol]

Disabled robots may be used to gain an assist by having the ball deflect off them. An alliance is at a large disadvantage in gaining assist points if one of their robots become disabled.

Many matches in Central Illinois had disabled robots, and the alliance was only able to obtain a maximum of two assists.

[Carolyn_Grace]

Bring back the 2013's safety net. I hope FIRST still has some. It would ease the burden of returning the ball to play. Only the human players stand inside, and there are openings to impound the ball at the start of the cycle. Also put a net behind the goals to catch shots and make it easier for the volunteers.

This may not work, there are teams with launchers that would obliterate last years net.

The nets would been to be seriously reinforced physically. They fell down often enough when just a small frisbee hit them. Imagine a huge ball, going 30 ft per second? The whole system would collapse, especially if one hit a pole.

[themccannman]

Reduce G40 to a foul. Make the field barrier the line not to cross. It's incredibly hard for human players to keep their hands behind the safety zone. If you stand with your heels at the back of the box and stick your arms out straight in front of you your arms cross the edge of the safety zone, that's silly.

Refs need to be reallocated. They have too much to do and frequently forget to relight the pedestal until teams remind them.

[sodizzle]

As it's been stated before, the refs need to be better trained in certain situations like forcing a penalty and they need to freed of most of their responsibility. It's absurd to try and make the referees watch up to 6 robots and keep score and keep track of assists and keep track of penalties and keep track of pins and keep track of the pedestal and... the list goes on.

Scorekeepers are absolutely needed. The referees have too much on their plate and it was very apparent. Missed calls after missed calls, with a thrown in miscalled call. These people are volunteering. We might have all forgotten that recently.

[Anthony Galea]

Here's a new one, but it's not something game breaking:

Original text:

If an ALLIANCE’s BALL becomes stuck in an ALLIANCE’S ROBOT, the ALLIANCE may signal to the Head Referee that the BALL is “dead” by holding the yellow “DEAD BALL” placard against the DRIVER STATION acrylic.

I feel that if a disabled robot on any alliance is blocking the path to the ball, preventing a team from reaching the ball, a dead ball should be able to be called. It happened at least once during qualifications, where one of our alliance members lost communication about a quarter of the way through the match, and we spent the rest of the match trying to retrieve the ball. I know it isn't major, but we lost a qualification match due to that.

[pandamonium]

1.
I was looking at the different definitions of possession and this seemed to be ignored both for the alliance and when the opponent did it.

“trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).

Perhaps add a time much like the pinning rules like the ball needs to be held for approximately X seconds. Perhaps I am interpreting this incorrectly but I saw tons of robots pressing the balls against robots and field elements and no possession called.

2. G25
ROBOTS on the same ALLIANCE may not blockade the FIELD in an attempt to stop the flow of the MATCH. This rule has no effect on individual ROBOT-ROBOT interaction.

The defense in many cases was intense and if two robots were defending one it seemed to me to be bordering on blockading. I suggest that they expand on this to limit defense to 1 on 1 defense.

2 robots ganging up on one just is not fun.

3. add a coopertition bonus:
If an alliance achieves 60 or more assist points in a match they receive a bonus. The assist value seems too low in point values considering that is what the game is named after!

[Jim Zondag]

<G28>
What we have here is nearly the identical situation we had in 2008:
- The GDC chose a very large playing object.
- Because the object is so large, it is essentially impossible to obtain the object without extending beyond the bumper zone.
- In order to play offense in Arial Assist, teams must have extensions in order to pickup and/or pass the ball.
- because there is only one playing piece per alliance, many teams are assigned to pure defense roles.
- What we saw at Southfield this weekend was defensive teams waiting until the offense reached out to collect the ball, and then hitting them in an attempt to draw a foul. Often this worked. Once a defense team successfully drew a penalty for this, either accidentally or purposefully, we observed them seemingly doing this more deliberately in later matches. Honestly, who can blame them?; if a team built a robot which cannot score, and they suddenly realize that they can quickly score 50 points by ramming others at the right moment, they will modify their game play to try to do this again.

- So, when it comes to rule enforcement on G28, the key question is this:
Should we penalize teams who are simply attempting to play the game as designed when defenders attack them as they attempt to collect the ball?

- Team A builds a complex machine which can collect and throw the ball as intended by the GDC.
- Team B builds a box with wheels.
- The <G28> rule as it stands puts all of the risk burden on Team A and none on Team B. Is this what we want? Continuing to enforce this rule as we saw in week 1 will discourage teams from rising to the challenge of the Arial Assist game design. I believe we should reward teams who try to solve the problems FIRST presents to us, not penalize them for trying.

Enforcing this rule with respect for offense and defensive roles will help.
Defense team do not have to crash into other teams' collectors. It is quite obvious that many of them are willfully engaging in these collisions.
Obviously this is a tough thing to police. Certainly, enforcing it only in situations where "damage" occurs will help as others have already suggested. My own team got one such penalty this weekend, and ironically it was our robot which was damaged, not the defender in that case.
Better defining exactly what constitutes damage will also help. The FRC manual states: FRC is a full-contact ROBOT competition and may include rigorous game play. While Game and ROBOT Rules limit severe damage to ROBOTS, Teams should design their ROBOTS to be robust.
To me this means that minor, incidental damage is to be somewhat expected. There does not seem to be universal agreement amongst the refs on what exactly damage is. If a team makes a fragile robot, who's fault is it when it breaks?

Eventually, most of the reffing staff got it right in 2008, so I think this can be done properly in 2014. The Southfield refs seemed to be already handling this better on Saturday IMHO.

In addition, this penalty is much, much too heavily valued. 50 points is simply way too much. In week one, the average per team contribution per match was 19 points. Having a situation in which a single infraction costs more that 2 matches worth of team contribution is a complete game killer. This penalty should only be 10 points.

[GaryVoshol]

It must be emphasized to every single ref during training that one robot cannot force another to take a penalty.

I agree with that concept, but please cite the rule that allows me to do that. We don't have a "but he made me do it" rule this year.

[bduddy]

I agree with that concept, but please cite the rule that allows me to do that. We don't have a "but he made me do it" rule this year.This one:
G14

Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

[bduddy]

3. Make it clear to field reset they are an integral part of the game and train them well before the start of the first match.
Field reset seems to never get that much respect or training... I was field reset for several years and read the rules closely, just as I always do, but there was very little training for those that haven't, and some of my fellow volunteers were quite confused over what they should do during the match and how. Even when the human players could have a big impact on the game, they weren't asking for conflict of interests forms, which seemed a bit off to me, too... I know I would have felt somewhat uncomfortable doing it with my former team on the field in a game where quick replacement of game pieces was critical.

[bitty]

1. Have 6 refs out ont the field rather than 5. Each ref will be assinged a bot to watch throughout the match and will let the refs catch g14.
2. Have scorekeepers to free up times for the refs because of the lag at the scoring tablet.
3. Have balls that go out of play be put back where they were tossed out instead of taking 5-15 seconds for them to be moved back to the driver stations.

[orangemoore]

Find 1 person per alliance to score possession for each alliance, the truss points, catch points and when they are scored.

So basically separate scoring and penalties. This would make the game a lot like last year where the refs are concerned by the rules of the game and not the score.

[YAK'ker]

as it was mentioned above:

"It must be emphasized to every single ref during training that one robot cannot force another to take a penalty. This has long been a core tenet of FIRST except in very special cases. Being pushed into goals, into opposition balls, and out of field perimeter by another robot should not be a foul."

I saw this happen yesterday....a 50 point foul. Same game, another robot intentionally capsized another robot with their arm, only a 20 point foul. I saw a LOT of battle bot action during the meet; especially in the final rounds. while it's exciting to watch, it's heartbreaking to see robots intentionally damaged in defense. What is this about gracious professionalism?

[EricH]

Find 1 person per alliance to score possession for each alliance, the truss points, catch points and when they are scored.


Actually, only one person per alliance can do the end score. Two per alliance can input possessions and fouls, as well as trusses and catches. That's the current system. The problem is that they all wear stripes, and there are only 4 total (not counting the Head Ref) at the field at a time.


And I will say this: The IE field reset crew was quite good at getting the ball, regardless of color, to where it needed to go, very quickly, particularly by the end of Saturday, and they didn't slow down much today even with having to train a new half-crew or more.

[waialua359]

1. Make the human player box bigger and further from the field. A 6 foot tall hp can easily violate the line.

This is the best suggestion I read so far.
With so many penalties and the fact that it is very difficult to throw and not incur one, this makes the most sense and the easiest to fix.

[themccannman]

And I will say this: The IE field reset crew was quite good at getting the ball, regardless of color, to where it needed to go, very quickly, particularly by the end of Saturday, and they didn't slow down much today even with having to train a new half-crew or more.

I'll second this, the field reset crew at ie was great, no issues at all. Our issues were with the pedestal not being lit as the refs were preoccupied scoring the match and looking for fouls. I also noticed that the refs tended to call possessions in the case of a foul much more often than possessions for assists. Multiple teams we're penalized for herding opponents balls when they hit it once or twice while teams that were actually intentionally herding the ball almost never got the assist. This was even happening when the robots were fully supporting their own ball and not getting assist points. The refs need to be either stricter calling possessions on the opponents ball, or they need to be more generous calling assists on your own ball. Several other mentors noticed the same thing.

[Koko Ed]

What would really help is if teams read and understood the rules.
It's easy to blame FIRST and the volunteers for everything that is wrong but the teams also need to take ownership of alot of the poor play on the field. In the past teams that had no idea what they were doing was not such a big deal because they could be carried by stronger teams who did everything. This year you need everyone to do their job or else the alliance suffers which makes alot of team uncomfortable having to trust others who they never trusted before.

[mechanical_robot]

1) Scorekeepers separate from refs.
However there would need to be a reconfiguration of the touchscreen input system, possibly adding two more screens. And you thought fixing the High Goals was expensive. They could always have a separate scorekeeper paper sheet like last year with the load cell debacle, but that may increase reset times. We used paper at the week zero Suffield Shakedown and it was quick enough, but it messes with the value of the Real Time Scoring. Ensuring that the pedestal lights up the moment a ball is scored in a goal is critical to the flow of the game.

2) Adjust penalty values.
Reduce G40 to a foul. Call possession of the ball by an opposing alliance.
I saw many instances of opposing alliances touching a ball twice or "herding" during defensive moves. This will improve the flow of the game by making it harder for a defending Robot to recklessly attack any Robot in possession of a ball.

3) More cowbell.
'nuff said.

I think defense bots should be allowed to attack robots with the ball. They shouldn't be allowed to take possession, but they should be allowed to try to delay a robot shooting into a goal or try to make the opposing robot drop the ball. Also they add excitement to the game.

[Peter Matteson]

<G28>
What we have here is nearly the identical situation we had in 2008:
- The GDC chose a very large playing object.
- Because the object is so large, it is essentially impossible to obtain the object without extending beyond the bumper zone.
- In order to play offense in Arial Assist, teams must have extensions in order to pickup and/or pass the ball.
- because there is only one playing piece per alliance, many teams are assigned to pure defense roles.
- What we saw at Southfield this weekend was defensive teams waiting until the offense reached out to collect the ball, and then hitting them in an attempt to draw a foul. Often this worked. Once a defense team successfully drew a penalty for this, either accidentally or purposefully, we observed them seemingly doing this more deliberately in later matches. Honestly, who can blame them?; if a team built a robot which cannot score, and they suddenly realize that they can quickly score 50 points by ramming others at the right moment, they will modify their game play to try to do this again.

- So, when it comes to rule enforcement on G28, the key question is this:
Should we penalize teams who are simply attempting to play the game as designed when defenders attack them as they attempt to collect the ball?
...

By the end of the Granite state district it seemed like this was a no call, which is what it should be in my opionion. If you go outside the bumpers you better be robust to last and expect the hit, but you shouldn't be penalized unless you're damaging a robot inside their frame perimeter.
There were definitely teams trying to game the system on this one until the refs caught on.

[Taylor]

During qualification rounds, allow 2 red and 2 blue balls in play.
During elimination rounds, allow 1 of each color (as it is now).

[Chris Hibner]

G12 needs two penalty levels. I can understand a 50 point penalty if a robot picks up an opponents ball, but contact with the ball that is marginal should be a smaller penalty.

Here's a case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsyx0QmpPlk#t=138. Watch the action near the far blue inbounder zone at the 2:24 point. The ball bounces off the red defender while the defender was trying to play robot defense against a blue robot. The result was a 50 point penalty that turned a 34 point win into a 16 point loss.

[Chris is me]

During qualification rounds, allow 2 red and 2 blue balls in play.
During elimination rounds, allow 1 of each color (as it is now).

Honestly, this is a drastic change but I really like this suggestion despite qualifications becoming different than elims. This game has fundamental design flaws apart from the broken penalty structure and this change would fix the extreme effect of strength of schedule on seeding. This must be coupled with the addition of scorekeepers to relieve the refs of having to do even more work.

[Taylor]

Honestly, this is a drastic change but I really like this suggestion despite qualifications becoming different than elims. This game has fundamental design flaws apart from the broken penalty structure and this change would fix the extreme effect of strength of schedule on seeding. This must be coupled with the addition of scorekeepers to relieve the refs of having to do even more work.
The precedent has been set - 2012 bridges.
In my mind, this change will bring about two benefits - it will make the quals much more watchable, and it will reduce the amount of robot-incurred robot damage before elims begin. Not just from aggressive defensive play, but from the scrum that results from a red and blue ball, loose on the field, in the same area.

Also, JVN noted that this would be an awesome 2v2 game. I'd like to see that - even if it's during exhibition (mentor?) matches at an offseason event.

[Peter Matteson]

I forgot my other idea that would make arguing with the refs over scoring for assists and trussing less of an issue when teams forget to clear the autonomous balls.

PUT A WHITE STRIPE AROUND THE AUTONOMOUS BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't tell you how many times teams on the field and people in the stands lost track of the fact that the ball being played was an auton ball that rebounded down the length of the field.

Just put a stripe on the ball so people can tell there is a difference.

[orangemoore]

I forgot my other idea that would make arguing with the refs over scoring for assists and trussing less of an issue when teams forget to clear the autonomous balls.

PUT A WHITE STRIPE AROUND THE AUTONOMOUS BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't tell you how many times teams on the field and people in the stands lost track of the fact that the ball being played was an auton ball that rebounded down the length of the field.

Just put a stripe on the ball so people can tell there is a difference.

The problem is that all of the balls are recycled in the match.

[Chris Hibner]

I mentioned this match in the other thread, but here is why something needs to change as far as how scorekeeping is done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6pHN2gB_8Y

Watch the match, and determine how many points the red alliance scored. Then check out the official score. It's quite an eye opener.

EDIT: For those scoring at home, there was a truss pass with about 10 seconds left in the match that was after the video got cut, so add 10 points to your score for that.

[Karthik]

I'm going to be short and to the point here.

1. Scale back the value of the penalties. The scaling of penalties is completely out of whack when compared to the point scoring potential for an alliance. This is causing penalties to have an overwhelming impact on matches.

2. Allow for certain rule infractions to merely generate a warning for inconsequential actions. The warning will serve as a deterrent, and the match is not unnecessarily affected by an action which did not impact the result. If a team repeatedly performs the same infraction, issue an penalty. This would be similar to a yellow/red card system, but applied to fouls. Actually the better analogy is basketball where you're allowed to commit a certain number of fouls that don't affect a shot, before your opponent is awarded free throws.

[EricLeifermann]

I mentioned this match in the other thread, but here is why something needs to change as far as how scorekeeping is done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6pHN2gB_8Y

Watch the match, and determine how many points the red alliance scored. Then check out the official score. It's quite an eye opener.

EDIT: For those scoring at home, there was a truss pass with about 10 seconds left in the match that was after the video got cut, so add 10 points to your score for that.

counted 125...

EDIT: I see from Spyder you only got 66 points.

[Steve W]

I'm going to be short and to the point here.

1. Scale back the value of the penalties. The scaling of penalties is completely out of whack when compared to the point scoring potential for an alliance. This is causing penalties to have an overwhelming impact on matches.

2. Allow for certain rule infractions to merely generate a warning for inconsequential actions. The warning will serve as a deterrent, and the match is not unnecessarily affected by an action which did not impact the result. If a team repeatedly performs the same infraction, issue an penalty. This would be similar to a yellow/red card system, but applied to fouls. Actually the better analogy is basketball where you're allowed to commit a certain number of fouls that don't affect a shot, before your opponent is awarded free throws.

Second

[Chris Hibner]

counted 125...

I counted 125 as well, yet the official score was 66...

[orangemoore]

counted 125...

Same here.

[Peter Matteson]

I counted 125 as well, yet the official score was 66...

I had 135 in the video.

15 mobility
20 for 1 hot auton high
20 for 2x Auton balls scored high in teleop
80 for 2x 40 pt cycles (2 assist, truss, high goal)

[EricLeifermann]

I had 135 in the video.

15 mobility
20 for 1 hot auton high
20 for 2x Auton balls scored high in teleop
80 for 2x 40 pt cycles (2 assist, truss, high goal)

2 assists are only 10 points so that equates to a 30 point cycle not 40.

[Libby K]

It must be emphasized to every single ref during training that one robot cannot force another to take a penalty. This has long been a core tenet of FIRST except in very special cases. Being pushed into goals, into opposition balls, and out of field perimeter by another robot should not be a foul.

In addition, the rule regarding penetration inside the bumper perimeter needs to be enforced correctly. Damage needs to occur, or it needs to be clearly intentional to generate a foul.

This is an exceptionally good point. A few times at events I've seen, BLUEBOT would get a possession foul (for 'trapping' or 'herding' the red ball), when REDBOT was in fact pinning them to the red ball.

G12 needs two penalty levels. I can understand a 50 point penalty if a robot picks up an opponents ball, but contact with the ball that is marginal should be a smaller penalty.

^This would fix that.

Similarly, low goal incursions and extending outside the field perimeter when being pinned to the goal/wall by the opposite alliance happened quite often, and sometimes the G14 violator was not penalized, and the incursion/field perimeter foul was assessed instead.

G14

Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

I think the suggestions about scorekeepers separately from refs is a great one, because it could let the refs focus on the interactions between robots. Several inside-frame-perimeter violations went unpenalized, even when they caused damage, simply because the referees 'didn't see it happen'. If there were a scorekeeper watching the ball instead, the ref would have been able to see the robot interaction. I think it would seriously improve people's impressions of the game if there were scorekeepers dedicated to the ball/assist/scoring/pedestal tracking and the refs could focus on the robots. (This would also help with the scorekeeping errors that are being pointed out in this thread - 125 points scored vs 66 recorded is a BIG problem.)

I'm going to be short and to the point here.

1. Scale back the value of the penalties. The scaling of penalties is completely out of whack when compared to the point scoring potential for an alliance. This is causing penalties to have an overwhelming impact on matches.

2. Allow for certain rule infractions to merely generate a warning for inconsequential actions. The warning will serve as a deterrent, and the match is not unnecessarily affected by an action which did not impact the result. If a team repeatedly performs the same infraction, issue an penalty. This would be similar to a yellow/red card system, but applied to fouls. Actually the better analogy is basketball where you're allowed to commit a certain number of fouls that don't affect a shot, before your opponent is awarded free throws.

Spot on. I've got nothing to say except 'seconded'.

[thefro526]

I think the suggestions about scorekeepers separately from refs is a great one, because it could let the refs focus on the interactions between robots. Several inside-frame-perimeter violations went unpenalized, even when they caused damage, simply because the referees 'didn't see it happen'. If there were a scorekeeper watching the ball instead, the ref would have been able to see the robot interaction. I think it would seriously improve people's impressions of the game if there were scorekeepers dedicated to the ball/assist/scoring/pedestal tracking and the refs could focus on the robots. (This would also help with the scorekeeping errors that are being pointed out in this thread - 125 points scored vs 66 recorded is a BIG problem.)


Yes this, 100 times over, we need dedicated score keepers.

During our Elimination matches at Hatboro Horsham, our scores seemed to be lower than expected, due to some missed auto points, and missed assist points, but we weren't all that concerned since we were winning matches. Then, in Final 1, the posted score was 79 to 59 in favor of the Red Alliance, even though both Alliances* had been scoring in excess of 100pts in each of their previous rounds. (*Semi 1-1, #1 alliance scored 99pts.)

After an intense post match discussion with the head ref, we found out that the initial assists on either end of the field were missed for both alliances, and that some of our previous "same zone" assists (Robot A passes to B in Z1, B moves to Z2) had not been counted as assists in earlier matches... Thankfully the missed assists would have only corrected the scores on both sides and not changed who won the match, so we went to Final 2 where the scores were correct, but it makes me wonder what else may have been missed through the course of the weekend.

It seems like the ideal solution would be to have one scorekeeper for each alliance, sitting at approximately mid-field and have them track the ball. We might not get 100% perfect results, but they'd have to be better than now.

[Carolyn_Grace]

I forgot my other idea that would make arguing with the refs over scoring for assists and trussing less of an issue when teams forget to clear the autonomous balls.

PUT A WHITE STRIPE AROUND THE AUTONOMOUS BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't tell you how many times teams on the field and people in the stands lost track of the fact that the ball being played was an auton ball that rebounded down the length of the field.

Just put a stripe on the ball so people can tell there is a difference.

It's pretty simple to tell when a ball is an autonomous ball by the way the high goals are lit up. As soon as a ball from a lit pedestal is put into play by a human player, the high goal lights up one section. If the pedestal isn't lit up at all, then the ball on the field is an auton ball.

...if the field isn't lighting up correctly in a timely fashion, than THAT needs to be fixed.

[RoundTabler]

This game has potential to be great fun if these issues are addressed. A huge issue is the foul calls. We saw up to 150 points of fouls at GSDE - in the ELIMS! We personally got called on 2 50 point fouls in the FINALS!! Foul points decided many matches. The head ref was overruling the vast majority of fouls by the end of Sat (two tech fouls called on our bot were annulled in final match 1).

[Tom Line]

I forgot my other idea that would make arguing with the refs over scoring for assists and trussing less of an issue when teams forget to clear the autonomous balls.

PUT A WHITE STRIPE AROUND THE AUTONOMOUS BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't tell you how many times teams on the field and people in the stands lost track of the fact that the ball being played was an auton ball that rebounded down the length of the field.

Just put a stripe on the ball so people can tell there is a difference.

100X yes. There are far more balls than needed for both alliance - I counted at least 6 for each. Permanently mark those auton balls with white tape or paint - PLEASE. Help the spectators enjoy the game!

[carlgrass32]

This year's game seemed kind of boring. No offense. 1 ball per team? really? Sorry.

[Steve W]

As I posted in the G40 rule thread:

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.

[bduddy]

As I posted in the G40 rule thread:

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.We had that before, in 2005. It was one of the most hated FRC rules ever, with just as many penalties generated if not more as G40 today.

[Tom Line]

We had that before, in 2005. It was one of the most hated FRC rules ever, with just as many penalties generated if not more as G40 today.

That seems odd. Perhaps it was difference circumstances. In the last 3 years, 11, 12, and 13, we've had 'safe' zones where defending robots weren't allowed. The rules were figured out fairly quickly and I don't remember them causing particular heartburn.

[Steve W]

We had that before, in 2005. It was one of the most hated FRC rules ever, with just as many penalties generated if not more as G40 today.

What was hated was the way the HP had to stand. It was changed by week 2

[Basel A]

I think the suggestions about scorekeepers separately from refs is a great one, because it could let the refs focus on the interactions between robots. Several inside-frame-perimeter violations went unpenalized, even when they caused damage, simply because the referees 'didn't see it happen'. If there were a scorekeeper watching the ball instead, the ref would have been able to see the robot interaction. I think it would seriously improve people's impressions of the game if there were scorekeepers dedicated to the ball/assist/scoring/pedestal tracking and the refs could focus on the robots. (This would also help with the scorekeeping errors that are being pointed out in this thread - 125 points scored vs 66 recorded is a BIG problem.)


Libby, you've been a VC, do you think it's feasible to expect events to bring in ~2 more trained (and hopefully experienced) volunteers this late in the game? Question goes out to all the other event-runners as well.

[Mr. Van]

After playing in week 1, here are my suggestions:

1. Move the human player box back so that it is nearly physically impossible for a person to reach out into the safe zone (or the field perimeter or wherever you want to make the penalty start). This is a SAFETY ISSUE. You can't have a penalty which is inconsistently called be your safety system. Design the safety INTO THE FIELD SETUP. (This is equivalent to putting a guard to prevent access to a pinch point vs. telling people "be safe!"). One is true safety - the other is more safety theater.

2. Place a piece of clear polycarbonate over the pipes above the driver station. Balls bounced back out of the goals quite often. Since very, very few teams have a full regulation field, it was quite a surprise for many when their carefully tuned shot bounced right back out of the goal. Since the practice fields do not have these bars, it was pretty difficult to try to fix the problem.

The first change would ideally be made by making the pipes that separate the human player from the field longer so that the player was physically kept further from the field. I understand that this might be problematic (i.e. costly), but a very simple solution would be to move the tape marking the box further from the field. We are used to playing games (basketball, baseball, football, soccer, etc.) where the field is not defined by an invisible vertical plane, but by where your feet contact the field itself and keeping your feet in a zone is something that many more people will be able to DO as well as understand.

The second change is a simple set of several polycarbonate sheets placed over the two pipes above the player station. A few well placed holes and a few cable ties or straps and that should be good to go.

Both of these changes would make the game much more spectator friendly, and allow teams to play in a more "natural" way. They also do not require any sort of major re-writing of rules or penalties.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[Libby K]

Libby, you've been a VC, do you think it's feasible to expect events to bring in ~2 more trained (and hopefully experienced) volunteers this late in the game? Question goes out to all the other event-runners as well.

I can only speak from my own experiences as a VC, but my intent is always to have extra refs and scorekeepers so that people can take breaks. (Example, if FIRST asks for 4 refs I try to have 5 or 6, so that at least one can rotate in and give people a chance to sit down/take a break, especially considering sometimes events can run through lunch.) In that situation, it'd be very easy to put the one or two extras on scorekeeping. If an event is right-on-the-number, then yes - that's definitely more difficult. I'd love to hear other VCs/event people chime in as well on this, but in my head it's doable.

[cglrcng]

G12 needs two penalty levels. I can understand a 50 point penalty if a robot picks up an opponents ball, but contact with the ball that is marginal should be a smaller penalty.

Here's a case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsyx0QmpPlk#t=138. Watch the action near the far blue inbounder zone at the 2:24 point. The ball bounces off the red defender while the defender was trying to play robot defense against a blue robot. The result was a 50 point penalty that turned a 34 point win into a 16 point loss.

___________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsyx0QmpPlk#t=138

Southfield Q-042...(Watch this qualifying match video) Can anyone who was actually there and witnessed this match explain what actually happened? (The previously referenced video above also shows the same kind of stuff happening too).

First watch the lower closest red alliance bot w/ no ball...(Appears to be placed on the field backwards looking at the launcher and the auto results...Was it penalized for crossing the truss? If so I certainly missed the flag. (though it isn't hard to miss as both flags were untouched throughout the match).

Then watch the blue close sidelines HP throughout the match and all the interaction between the head ref, and 2 field reset volunteers and the HP...What was that head ref (and the volunteers...3 all had input w/ that poor HP), doing on that ball switchout? Plainly a blue ball was on the field when he hands the HP another blue ball, then takes it away, then another is handed immediately to that HP in the very same move.....Ouch, it was flat hard to even watch. I couldn't imagine being a contestant in such a match on that field after watching that painful to watch mess.

-After watching that I'd have to flat say "if the mission is to improve the game"....I'd personally say scrap those sideline HP zones and return the ball to the field at the place where it went out, and do it quickly. But, I never actually agree w/ tinkering w/ the game design after the release....Play it as it was designed.

[Gregor]

Then watch the blue close sidelines HP throughout the match and all the interaction between the head ref, and 2 field reset volunteers and the HP...What was that head ref (and the volunteers...3 all had input w/ that poor HP), doing on that ball switchout? Plainly a blue ball was on the field when he hands the HP another blue ball, then takes it away, then another is handed immediately to that HP in the very same move.....

The blue ball was thrown over the truss and landed in the low goal. It did not count as a scored ball, and the head referee knew this, which is why he started shaking his head. Another referee appeared to end the cycle anyway. The head referee handed the ball to the human player, and then noticed another blue ball in play. He then decided to just ignore it??? It should have been a foghorn and redo.

Disclaimer: I wasn't actually there, this is just what it looks like.

[bduddy]

G12 needs two penalty levels. I can understand a 50 point penalty if a robot picks up an opponents ball, but contact with the ball that is marginal should be a smaller penalty.

Here's a case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsyx0QmpPlk#t=138. Watch the action near the far blue inbounder zone at the 2:24 point. The ball bounces off the red defender while the defender was trying to play robot defense against a blue robot. The result was a 50 point penalty that turned a 34 point win into a 16 point loss.I don't see how that could possibly have been called "possession" under the current rules. Bouncing off of a robot is not supposed to be possession.

[jvriezen]

Based on reports of refs not noticing dead ball requests from alliances, a simple fix would be to supply one (or more) air horns for an alliance to get the ref's attention. Using the air horn at any time other than to signal a dead ball would be a 50 point penalty. Maybe these could also be used to inform the ref that the pedestal has not been lit when it should be. These could be picked up locally by event coordinators for week 2, and packed in the field cases for following weeks.

Far cheaper and simpler to implement than any electronic or driver station based change.

Example: http://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-13530/Traffic-Safety/Air-Horns?pricode=WU336&gadtype=pla&id=34610099002&gclid=CIrtis-z97wCFYsWMgodnhcAUQ&gclsrc=aw.ds

[bduddy]

___________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsyx0QmpPlk#t=138

Southfield Q-042...(Watch this qualifying match video) Can anyone who was actually there and witnessed this match explain what actually happened? (The previously referenced video above also shows the same kind of stuff happening too).

First watch the lower closest red alliance bot w/ no ball...(Appears to be placed on the field backwards looking at the launcher and the auto results...Was it penalized for crossing the truss? If so I certainly missed the flag. (though it isn't hard to miss as both flags were untouched throughout the match).

Then watch the blue close sidelines HP throughout the match and all the interaction between the head ref, and 2 field reset volunteers and the HP...What was that head ref (and the volunteers...3 all had input w/ that poor HP), doing on that ball switchout? Plainly a blue ball was on the field when he hands the HP another blue ball, then takes it away, then another is handed immediately to that HP in the very same move.....Ouch, it was flat hard to even watch. I couldn't imagine being a contestant in such a match on that field after watching that painful to watch mess.

-After watching that I'd have to flat say "if the mission is to improve the game"....I'd personally say scrap those sideline HP zones and return the ball to the field at the place where it went out, and do it quickly. But, I never actually agree w/ tinkering w/ the game design after the release....Play it as it was designed.At 0:09 the head referee briefly waves his flag (side note: That's a huge pet peeve of mine... Wave it so everyone can see!), presumably to indicate a penalty. He then asks the ref on that corner something, probably whether it touched the blue robot or not - the answer to that isn't clear from this angle, but he never indicates a technical foul.

As for the ball, Gregor is correct that the ball was not scored, which is why it was handed back to the HP. The head ref then turned around to see another blue ball on the field (presumably the other refs had given credit for the score), which quickly bounced out on its own, so the head ref I guess thought it would be OK to just keep one blue ball in play and fix the score later.

[Gregor]

presumably the other refs had given credit for the score

That part definitely happened, as the lights on the high goal turned off.

[Squillo]

This:

Proposed wording for updated rules on inbounding:

<Proposed G21> ROBOTS may not extend outside the HUMAN PLAYER BARRIER.

The current rule prohibits extension beyond the SAFETY ZONE. The HP barrier is the 20" wide zone above the field perimeter pipes.)

<Proposed G40> TEAMS may not extend any body part into the FIELD during the MATCH.

The current rule prohibits reaching beyond the SAFETY ZONE.

G41 (no HP/robot contact, no HP/Ball/Robot contact) should remain as is.

This would make the HP barrier a "transition/neutral zone" where either robots or HP's could reach, but there could be no contact between them. You still couldn't lay a ball directly into a robot.

I think the same objective could be accomplished by re-defining the SAFETY ZONE to match the HUMAN PLAYER BARRIER.

[Squillo]

AND This:

I forgot my other idea that would make arguing with the refs over scoring for assists and trussing less of an issue when teams forget to clear the autonomous balls.

PUT A WHITE STRIPE AROUND THE AUTONOMOUS BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't tell you how many times teams on the field and people in the stands lost track of the fact that the ball being played was an auton ball that rebounded down the length of the field.

Just put a stripe on the ball so people can tell there is a difference.

[Gregor]

I forgot my other idea that would make arguing with the refs over scoring for assists and trussing less of an issue when teams forget to clear the autonomous balls.

PUT A WHITE STRIPE AROUND THE AUTONOMOUS BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't tell you how many times teams on the field and people in the stands lost track of the fact that the ball being played was an auton ball that rebounded down the length of the field.

Just put a stripe on the ball so people can tell there is a difference.

It's really not that hard. If you've had possession of a ball and there are no lights on the high goal, then it's an autonomous ball. If your coach can't keep track of this, good luck to them when there are 6 robots and a red and blue ball in one tiny corner of the field. That's where it really gets fun (until 610 picks up the wrong ball :rolleyes: ).

[TheMadCADer]

Red and Blue vests for Human Players so it's easier for field reset to get the ball to the right person. Don't make people think on the spot with people yelling, they'll screw up.

[Chris Hibner]

One thing I want to mention in regard to my previous posts in this thread: I think that the referees in Michigan do an outstanding job. I've watched the videos of a lot of matches from Southfield and I must say that Gary Voshol and his crew did a lot better job than I would've done. There were a few match videos that I watched that I was actually shocked at how well they did given the events of the match.

My issue is that the game this year and the current setup are flawed. Individuals are rarely to blame when errors begin to arise - you have to ask the 5 whys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys) and figure out the real cause. It's almost always a systemic reason.

There were a number of great suggestions in this thread. I hope that some are implemented.

[Craig Roys]

One thing I want to mention in regard to my previous posts in this thread: I think that the referees in Michigan do an outstanding job. I've watched the videos of a lot of matches from Southfield and I must say that Gary Voshol and his crew did a lot better job than I would've done. There were a few match videos that I watched that I was actually shocked at how well they did given the events of the match.

My issue is that the game this year and the current setup are flawed. Individuals are rarely to blame when errors begin to arise - you have to ask the 5 whys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys) and figure out the real cause. It's almost always a systemic reason.

There were a number of great suggestions in this thread. I hope that some are implemented.

Agreed...none of my criticisms are on the refs themselves. They all are doing the best they can, but they are being put in a near impossible situation with too much to try and keep track of. There are a lot of situations where the end of play is seen and a call is made that seems correct to the ref, but when the entire play is taken into account it may not be. It's like in hockey when the retaliator (sp?) often is the one to get the penalty instead of the instigator.

[Duncan Macdonald]

Red and Blue vests for Human Players so it's easier for field reset to get the ball to the right person. Don't make people think on the spot with people yelling, they'll screw up.

I subbed in for field reset over the weekend. Finding the HP is not the hard part, it's trying to follow the game while returning balls as fast as possible. If you dedicate a field resetter to standing at centre and pointing to the HP and directing the ball carrier when a ball left the field without being scored everything runs well.

[meaubry]

Having observed the ref's this past week end while sitting in the judge's chairs along side the field (great vantage point in some respects, lousy in others) my observations are as follows;
Things that don’t change the rules
1) corner refs cannot watch everything that is going on. If they are watching on field action, they cannot watch sideline line activity very well. In one match, a human player ran after the ball that bounced out of the field of play almost to the stands and back - Un-noticed by the ref - I asked about the rule after the match and the ref told me they didn't see it happen. I suggest getting additional ref's to monitor sideline infractions.

2) Robot extending into opposing robot - obviously in place to limit damage to other robots internal organs. If you designed a pick up device that extends (which most have to do to pick up the ball from the floor) - you knowingly chose to take a risk in doing so. I strongly advice, making sure the arm is retracted in your robot space while driving around in reckless abandon. These robots are really fast, interaction is going to occur - on purpose! Be smart and don't put yourself in a position to get a penalty - unless you don't care about getting them. And don't cry that you cannot retract the device - that should have been thought about, so go fix it.

3) add a couple posts extending upward in front of the refs to protect them from errant shot balls – the refs would not need to panic, flinch, or worry about getting hit - and it is a simple field change with some T couplings and pipe.

4) human player interaction penalities - LEARN the rules and stop doing stuff that might earn you an infraction - Like it or not, that can be fixed by training and practice - no excuses.

5) Mark the auto balls (as suggested - great idea)

Things that would change the rules
6) put a podium in each corner of the field, and always have a ball on each one of them at all times

7) make it the responsibility of the team human player to place the next ball into the next cycle - and if they mess up and have more than one ball out there at a time (shut off the signal to all of that alliance - game over for them) – only do this in conjunction with marking the auto balls and #6, plus you could eliminate podium lighting delay issues.

Have fun! Remember, it’s only week 1 – things will get better!
Mike

[barn34]

In my oppinion, making the following tweaks for week 2 will make a world's worth of difference.

1 - Like many have already mentioned, g40 calls have absolutely killed a lot of matches. 50 points is an absolute match killer. I completely understand the desire to keep human players safe, but I would recommend making a change so there isn't a penalty if the human player extends beyond the BACK of the human player zone to allow them natural full range of motion in loading balls. Many human players have arms that are long enough that it doesn't give them enough room to comfortably operate. This is one of the primary reasons for crossing into the safety zone and incurring the penalties, I feel. Allow them to guage where they need to place their feet in order to load balls as desired without crossing into the safety zone. Also, I would change it to a 20 point foul with a warning before hand. If you warn them to watch the safety zone and they still end up crossing it later in the match, then feel free to penalize. Just make sure they understand that they're doing something in the wrong so they don't keep doing it unaware they're crossing that invisible boundary and incurring fouls.

2 - Add in a score keeper for each alliance that also control the lighting of the pedestal. As soon as a ball scores, the points go up in real time and the pedestal lights. It's really a small problem that has an unfortunate ballooning impact on the game. Time is everything and the referees need to focus on the robot to robot interaction. Allow the score keepers to follow each ball and responsible for lighting that white barrel when a ball is cleared. Again, this echoes what many have said already.

3 - In terms of robot to robot interaction, make robot contact to anything inside bumper perimeters an immediate 20 point foul. Inconsequential or not. And it must be called. Every time. If the robot is a repeated offender or if any contact is a direct cause of immediate significant damage to another robot, that's a 50 point technical foul. That also needs to be called every time. This will make every team's drivers think twice about how they're going after playing defense and make them play it the proper way, the safe way, with focus on bumper to bumper contact only. This will make drivers retract intakes or orient their robots so collisions occur on sides where damage done by extremeties will be avoided. This will be a huge benefit to every robot's long term health this year and will also keep all participants safer. Hopefully, this will also discourage play that breaks down into glorified battle bots, resulting in very unwatchable contests. This game is a great one to watch when alliances are working that ball strategically across the field. I love the cooperation needed to play this game well and while defense is a big part of the strategic game, it can't be allowed to break matches down into a glorified robotic slug fest. Robots can't get away with blindly ramming away at each other and double (or even triple) teams on the same robot. This trickles into another rule, but blockading needs to probably be reworded (or at least enforced) so that the double and triple teams on one sole robot are eliminated or highly discouraged. We blew our main breaker in the match we were eliminated at CIR trying to work through the double and triple teams of the other alliance pushing against us in attempts to keep us from getting that ball up. Strategically, it was smart, but very very frustrating to play and didn't make for a fun match to watch either. I don't think that is what the GDC intended, at all, I'm sure.

I do feel this game has a lot of potential if something is done to eliminate some of the above concerns. Hopefully, a rules change/update/focus allows for the real potential of this game to shine through moving forward the rest of the season.

[bduddy]

Robots can't get away with blindly ramming away at each other and double (or even triple) teams on the same robot. This trickles into another rule, but blockading needs to probably be reworded (or at least enforced) so that the double and triple teams on one sole robot are eliminated or highly discouraged. We blew our main breaker in the match we were eliminated at CIR trying to work through the double and triple teams of the other alliance pushing against us in attempts to keep us from getting that ball up. Strategically, it was smart, but very very frustrating to play and didn't make for a fun match to watch either. I don't think that is what the GDC intended, at all, I'm sure.Quite frankly, I don't think it's the other teams that are playing the game wrong. The GDC has made sure to emphasize teamwork and passing in this game, from the name to the game animation to the scoring system, and if you can't figure out how to get through a triple-team, then you're just not getting the message. The rule you're quoting to try to ban this strategy you don't like says nothing even remotely similar to what you think it means:
G25

ROBOTS on the same ALLIANCE may not blockade the FIELD in an attempt to stop the flow of the MATCH. This rule has no effect on individual ROBOT-ROBOT interaction.If you have the ball and don't pass it, then the only one stopping the flow of the match is you.