Petition: Lower technical foul values to make this game better

[billylo]

The 50-pt value of technical fouls are very influential in this year's game. Many of you have voiced your concerns.

So, I did some math homework tonight to assess the situation. Here are my observations:

1. We have played 49 regional final matches so far. Average score in the finals is 106 pts (before fouls). 29 of these matches (59%) were decided by less than 50 pts. In other words, one technical foul (calls or non-calls) would have swung the outcome of these very important matches.

2. Most of the G40s called were inconsequential (e.g. human players over-stretching their arms a little bit.) These are very hard for referees to judge reliably. [I haven't seen one consequential G40 yet. If you have, please comment below. Thx.]

3. In week 1, alliances who were penalized by technical fouls may not know which team or which play caused the penalty, making it very difficult for them to adjust.

If you feel the same way as I do (or differently), please comment below.
(Yes for support, No for no support; either way, feel free to elaborate.)

FIRST is about encouraging students to pick up STEM. I believe this game could do a better job at that by adjusting to actual plays. The finals would be even more thrilling and engaging.

Thanks for your help.

EDIT: -- It's week 2 only, and rules do change to gain clarity and effectiveness in achieving the goals. GDC cannot possibly predict the impact of penalties perfectly every year before the build season starts. In other words, it's not too late.

[orangemoore]

As much as I would like to see the point value for a technical foul to go down, there is a point where we can't always get what we want. If we were able to complain about a rule enough to change it there really wouldn't be a point in having rules.

I think that we should all try to get used to it with the 5 weeks of competition left and try to make the best of it.

[Tyler2517]

I think that it should stay the same. The rules were released with the fouls/point's in it. Teams should have built robots that did not break these rules. In the case of G40 its a safety thing more then any thing else and should be followed regardless of the intent of the contact.
It was a design constraint from the very start, or at the very least the drives should know how to not break the rules.

[JohnFogarty]

No.

[BigJ]

I see a lot of people (not necessarily this OP) talking about how it is "impossible to make up 50 points". This may be true - catching up the equivalent of a 3-assist-and-truss-high-goal is not easy. Defense this year makes it harder.

In 2013 a tech foul was roughly equivalent to 7 discs. 7 discs weren't a lot by the end of the year -- but wait. Discs were a capped resource. It could have been literally impossible to recover from a technical foul last year, if both the alliances were scoring all frisbees and all climbing to 30. Should the value have been reduced last year?

Same question applies to 2011 and penalties.

[billylo]

The core reason for me taking the time to analyze this:

Would this change improve this game's ability to achieve FIRST's goal of increasing high-school students interest in STEM?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Re team's ability to recover from a 50-pt foul? The statistics for the finals is: 41% yes, 59% no.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I do not know if I'm for changing the rules this year that is a tricky subject since teams have spent a long time designing for these rules.

I'm definitely for FIRST doing a better job with game design in the future, the weights on these penalties and the pressure they put on the referees doesn't allow our sport to be as compelling as it could be.

The refs in FRC have one of the hardest jobs, because in most years it is nearly impossible to be completely correct all the time because the rules and demands of the position don't allow you to be. The field is too large and you're always going to miss something that according to the rules has to be called a penalty even if it has no effect on the outcome of the match.

[Jon Stratis]

Having just gotten back from an event, a few thoughts... In some cases, a 50-pt foul is completely appropriate. Looking at a single elimination match this afternoon in which there were two technical fouls called (one on each alliance), the penalty was appropriate for the action that caused it. The first was a G28, in which a full speed collision, combined with contact inside the frame perimeter, resulting in a part breaking and a robot's radio dangling on the field, putting that robot out of commission for the entire match. The second was for a G30, in which a robot tipped another robot, paused, then continued pushing until the other robot was completely down, putting it out of commission for the entire match.

These matches were typically around 100 points, and loosing an alliance partner significantly decreases a team's potential total (it eliminates an assist from every subsequent cycle and forces the alliance into a 3v2 situation, putting them at a disadvantage both offensively and defensively). A 50 point penalty, IMO, is entirely appropriate.

On the other hand, some penalties do seem to be more than they're really worth. For example, receiving a technical foul for accidentally herding the other alliance's ball for a few seconds (G12).

As for G40, as was specifically mentioned here... I personally see it as a safety issue, and as such deserves a strict penalty. I don't think there was a single G40 called in the LSR elimination matches this weekend, though - FIRST's update last week really seemed to make sense, the refs were calling it appropriately, and over the day thursday and friday teams learned how to avoid it.

And for those wondering, I found the LSR elimination matches to be some of the most entertaining, suspenseful, and exciting matches I've ever seen in my 8 years of doing FIRST. This really did turn out to be a great game.

[BrendanB]

I believe that for the technical fouls the hard point value of 50 points is appropriate however it is the slight/inconsequential violations that are ruining the game.

[David8696]

More discussion of a similar issue:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1355715&posted=1#post1355715

[JohnSchneider]

G40 is the equivalent of an offsides in football giving 7 points to the other team.

Would you even consider scoring in football to be a good indicator of performance at that point?

[billylo]

A little more thoughts:

It's more fun to see engaged students focusing on scoring, playing great D; rather than them focusing on avoiding big fouls.

Yes, safety should be high priority. No doubt. It's always a balancing act. Keep the discussion going!

[DampRobot]

Yes. Oh, please, yes.

Jim Zontag of 33 did OPR analysis that said that a tech foul was literally twice the average contribution of a team to an alliance in week one. According to TBA insights data, the average match score this week is 55--essentially the same as a technical foul. This is unhealthy, and should be changed.

Imagine if in 2013 the tech foul was 50 points (that's on par with what is is now, comparing tech foul to average alliance score). You would have had to score an extra 17 discs to make up for a tech foul. That's more than 4 cycles. Even over your entire alliance, you could not make up that kind of point gap. There is just no way to cycle four extra times in a match. The 20 point tech foul we got last year was 7 discs, just barely possible to make up with huge cycling performance and good defense. It was harsh (and did decide matches) but wasn't always a death sentence to an alliance.

A technical foul should be something that's high enough you're never going to accept it for strategic reasons. There might be a few situations (especially last year) where taking the foul made sense, but even last year it never made sense strategically to get a tech foul. I'd argue that given average scoring this year, you're properly motivated (to never get a tech foul) by a 30 point tech foul. 50 points is excessive. You're no more motivated by a 50 point foul than by a 30 point foul.

Another problem is not all teams are smart and not all teams know the rules. Top teams will do their very best to avoid tech fouls (in any game), but not all teams can be counted on to act that way. In quals, you can be screwed by a randomly paired team's human player accidentally inbounding a second ball. Boom. 100 point penalty. You just lost the match. A ref thinks their HPs finger goes inside the safety zone? You just lost the match. They poke their intake into another robot as they're trying to get the ball? Lost the match. The opponents ball accidentally lands in their robot? Lost the match.

Fine. FRC isn't all about winning. But some of us do care about whether matches are won on the strength of the robots or on a momentary mistake by one team. That effects the level of play, and therefore whether or not were really meeting our goal of changing the culture.

FIRST needs to reduce this excessive penalty.

EDIT:
This.

G40 is the equivalent of an offsides in football giving 7 points to the other team.

Would you even consider scoring in football to be a good indicator of performance at that point?

[BBray_T1296]

G40 is the equivalent of an offsides in football giving 7 points to the other team.

Would you even consider scoring in football to be a good indicator of performance at that point?

The intent of the rule is so people don't get their arm ripped off when they get snagged by a robot intake

It is hard to say that a similar hazard exists from an off sides in football

[AllenGregoryIV]

The intent of the rule is so people don't get their arm ripped off when they get snagged by a robot intake

It is hard to say that a similar hazard exists from an off sides in football

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Teams/students are consistently around operating robots on the practice and learning to work safely near machines is part of being on an FRC team. The rule could be "don't get your hand/arm near a robot and don't leave in the field for too long" and it would be much more enforceable and just as safe. If you've been in FRC for any reasonable length of time you have probably been hit by a robot and you probably weren't injured. I am all for safety but 50 points for pointing too enthusiastically with no robots around is extreme.

Again the rules are the way they are written this year, but they should be looked at closely and drastically improved in future years.

[DampRobot]

The intent of the rule is so people don't get their arm ripped off when they get snagged by a robot intake

It is hard to say that a similar hazard exists from an off sides in football

Large hits in football can and do cause severe injury, including broken bones, paralysis, and brain injury.

Safety is an issue. But would people really be any less safe if they were only penalized 30 points for going inside the safety zone?

Another solution is to make G40 a yellow card. It only hurts the team that breaks the rule in quals, and is extremely severe, just like a 50 point penalty (which seems to be a plus for some people). Teams won't win or lose on G40 infractions any more, and the team that violates the rule will be extremely careful from then on.

[Navid Shafa]

If you feel the same way as I do (or differently), please comment below.
(Yes for support, No for no support; either way, feel free to elaborate.

Yes. Throw up a poll in the thread?

[sircedric4]

Something should change I agree. Technical fouls swung the finals at the Arkansas regional. Technical fouls called and deliberated on after each of the last two games were over and not in real time were levied on the blue alliance. These technical fouls changed the results of the regional finals.

The technical foul levied in the last game was not even G40 but the herding the opponent's ball penalty. I challenge anyone to not accidentally bump the ball in the high intensity, and high contact match of a finals game.

This particular game puts too much control in the referee's hands with the size and human judgement aspect of the penalties. An honest mistake on the referee's part can literally cost an alliance an entire regional championship.

[mizscience]

Two weeks of regionals have passed. Changing this now would no doubt anger any teams who were negatively impacted by 50point TFs in those first 2 weeks. Yes, the 50 points is harsh - but I think it needs to stay as-is for the remainder of the season. Hopefully the GDC will take note of threads like this and factor these concerns into future game designs.

[pigpenguin]

Two weeks of regionals have passed. Changing this now would no doubt anger any teams who were negatively impacted by 50point TFs in those first 2 weeks. Yes, the 50 points is harsh - but I think it needs to stay as-is for the remainder of the season. Hopefully the GDC will take note of threads like this and factor these concerns into future game designs.

On the other hand you will anger future teams by keeping this rule in place. So if in any case someone will be mad you might as well make the game better for future players. Although I have a feeling that it will be left until next year.

[Nemo]

50 points is way too high for incidental possession of an opponent's ball. What bothers me is that if you do bump the other ball a single time, you shouldn't even get a penalty, yet it still gets called some of the time. If a random minor bump isn't enough of a possession to earn an assist, then by definition it also isn't enough to warrant a possession penalty.

[scaryone]

No,
learn the rules, understand the system, deal with it like everyone else has to. BTW not trying to sound coarse.

[mwtidd]

Based on what I saw at UNH, I would say no. The refs were doing a really good job of only calling egregious violations. Also, it is certainly possible for a team to make up for these penalties even in the elims. Take for instance our first semifinal match:
#FRCNHDUR TY E MC 16 RF 122 BF 107 RA 3280 213 319 BA 4555 58 3467 RFP 0 BFP 70 RHS 50 BHS 25 RTS 72 BTS 12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8HCVoHpo4U&list=UUjEb1dmLilMsJyhDvk57J7Q

We racked up 70 points in penalties and still won the match. Also note that this was against the alliance that inevitably went on to win the banner (after going through 3 semi final match 3s due to replays).

I was very impressed with the reffing, and never felt that a penalty we were called on wasn't warranted. Even when it altered the outcome of a match, I think the calls were fair.

Take for instance this match:
#FRCNHDUR TY Q MC 27 RF 83 BF 73 RA 1289 3499 501 BA 1307 5265 319 RFP 70 BFP 20 RHS 10 BHS 11 RTS 3 BTS 42

In a game with 60 point cycles and 75 points up for grab in autonomous, the 50 points is just enough to make it hurt when it happens. I equate the 50 point penalties to pass interference call. They can certainly affect the outcome of a game, they are sometimes controversial, but if they were less they may not be enough of a deterrent.

[mathking]

As quite a few posters have said, the high point value for inadvertent fouls is a problem. I think smaller point values would make for a better game. If you are really concerned with keeping play clean perhaps the point values ratchet up for multiple instances of the same infraction in the same match. One thing I think that would dramatically improve the game would be to have six scorekeepers, whose only job is to watch one team for possessions and scores. Then the referees could look just for fouls and not have a divided responsibility.

As a side note, I don't think any of the fouls called against us were wrong. We had our robot go well past (at least 3 or 4 inches) the safety zone once and in another match while trying to pick up a ball we hit 2171 very hard with our grabber, that happened to be about two feet up in the air right at the level of the Anderson connector for their battery, which we wrecked. It was inadvertent but consequential contact (we apologized to them and they gave us the wrecked connector for "pointing out a design flaw in their robot" and no one ended up angry) with another robot inside its frame perimeter. Both were clearly our fault and should have been called. So I am not complaining because I think we got treated unfairly. But I did see several instances where other teams were trying to gather a ball and a robot came at them from the side, hitting an extended grabber and drawing a foul. Given the game there is just no way to avoid such contacts.

[scaryone]

Based on what I saw at UNH, I would say no. The refs were doing a really good job of only calling egregious violations. Also, it is certainly possible for a team to make up for these penalties even in the elims. Take for instance our first semifinal match:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8HCVoHpo4U&list=UUjEb1dmLilMsJyhDvk57J7Q

We racked up 70 points in penalties and still won the match. Also note that this was against the alliance that inevitably went on to win the banner (after going through 3 semi final match 3s due to replays).

I was very impressed with the reffing, and never felt that a penalty we were called on wasn't warranted. Even when it altered the outcome of a match, I think the calls were fair.

Take for instance this match:


In a game with 60 point cycles and 75 points up for grab in autonomous, the 50 points is just enough to make it hurt when it happens. I equate the 50 point penalties to pass interference call. They can certainly affect the outcome of a game, they are sometimes controversial, but if they were less they may not be enough of a deterrent.

Agree with MathKing (Bob). UNH fouls seemed very reasonable, even with the 5 match Semi. The UNH officials did a great job and made the right call. You guys played us very hard and it was fun.

[Michael Hill]

I would like a "keep-out zone" marked on the field 20" from any human player zone. If there are any robots in that zone when a human player extends over the field, make it a technical foul. Otherwise, a regular foul.

[Karthik]

The intent of the rule is so people don't get their arm ripped off when they get snagged by a robot intake

It is hard to say that a similar hazard exists from an off sides in football

Ya, you know, other than life altering, dementia inducing concussions (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/league-of-denial/).

[sircedric4]

Based on what I saw at UNH, I would say no. The refs were doing a really good job of only calling egregious violations. Also, it is certainly possible for a team to make up for these penalties even in the elims. Take for instance our first semifinal match:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8HCVoHpo4U&list=UUjEb1dmLilMsJyhDvk57J7Q

We racked up 70 points in penalties and still won the match. Also note that this was against the alliance that inevitably went on to win the banner (after going through 3 semi final match 3s due to replays).

I was very impressed with the reffing, and never felt that a penalty we were called on wasn't warranted. Even when it altered the outcome of a match, I think the calls were fair.

Take for instance this match:


In a game with 60 point cycles and 75 points up for grab in autonomous, the 50 points is just enough to make it hurt when it happens. I equate the 50 point penalties to pass interference call. They can certainly affect the outcome of a game, they are sometimes controversial, but if they were less they may not be enough of a deterrent.


And based on what I was seeing at the Arkansas was exactly opposite. This is a personal amecdote just like your anecdote. The problem is that there is too much for the refs to do in order to have a consistent experience across all the venues. The fouls are too subjective and too penalizing. My experience with Aerial Assist, this is not a game of highest scoring alliance winning but who the referees allow to win.

I am happy you had good refs, I was not happy with ours. A change in the game rules is necessary to eliminate as much of the human subjectivity as possible. First should strive for consistent game experiences and that requires doing something with referee calls swinging games.

[wlaroche]

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Teams/students are consistently around operating robots on the practice and learning to work safely near machines is part of being on an FRC team. The rule could be "don't get your hand/arm near a robot and don't leave in the field for too long" and it would be much more enforceable and just as safe. If you've been in FRC for any reasonable length of time you have probably been hit by a robot and you probably weren't injured. I am all for safety but 50 points for pointing too enthusiastically with no robots around is extreme.

Again the rules are the way they are written this year, but they should be looked at closely and drastically improved in future years.

I am not eying to be mean here, but what is to close and what is to long? When things are bashing in front of you time is flying by. Even with the hard rules we referee by we have to make calls on who initiates the contact when both sides are running full tilt at each other.

[IronicDeadBird]

Changing point values after matches have been played WILL cause a firestorm. Everyday since kickoff I have switched from checking facebook first when I have access to the internet to checking FRC Manual, then Delphi, then I lose track of time checking Delphi.

[Anupam Goli]

There are actions that deserve a tech foul at a full 50 points, like intentionally tipping a team. There are actions that only deserve a 20 pt. foul. Then there are things that could incidentally happen that are getting tech fouls, like accidentally having an opponent ball in your possession, having a finger outside the yellow line, and damaging contact initiated by the team playing defense. Perhaps we should look into adding a third type of foul. The tech foul can be lowered to 30 pts in value, and we can have a "flagrant foul" be worth the full 50 pts.

[mwtidd]

And based on what I was seeing at the Arkansas was exactly opposite. This is a personal amecdote just like your anecdote. The problem is that there is too much for the refs to do in order to have a consistent experience across all the venues. The fouls are too subjective and too penalizing. My experience with Aerial Assist, this is not a game of highest scoring alliance winning but who the referees allow to win.

I am happy you had good refs, I was not happy with ours. A change in the game rules is necessary to eliminate as much of the human subjectivity as possible. First should strive for consistent game experiences and that requires doing something with referee calls swinging games.

I'm curious, how may refs did you have at your event? We had 6 + 1 head ref.

[wlaroche]

They increased the referees to 5 on the field and one to rotate in and out. It helped quite a bit. This does not count the head ref, they would be the sixth set of eyes.

[joelg236]

Yes. As a human player, I'm much more worried about foul points than I am enjoying the match, making smart decisions or having fun.

Tech fouls are almost equivalent to a DQ for the match (for most teams that aren't powerhouses).

[orangemoore]

Yes. As a human player, I'm much more worried about foul points than I am enjoying the match, making smart decisions or having fun.

Tech fouls are almost equivalent to a DQ for the match (for most teams that aren't powerhouses).

Isn't that the point? Making sure you are paying attention to what you are doing?
It may be excessive, but what you are saying to me is what the fouls are for. If you were not paying attention you could possibly get hurt.

[joelg236]

Isn't that the point? Making sure you are paying attention to what you are doing?
It may be excessive, but what you are saying to me is what the fouls are for. If you were not paying attention you could possibly get hurt.

I feel like not having the safety zone (what was originally intended) is sufficient, and has absolutely no effect on safety. There's no way anyone would get hurt if there was a clear line neither human nor robot could cross. And even if they could, the buffer zone could just be right at the field barrier.

[Karthik]

Isn't that the point? Making sure you are paying attention to what you are doing?
It may be excessive, but what you are saying to me is what the fouls are for. If you were not paying attention you could possibly get hurt.

I understand your point, but I feel like if FIRST was fully concerned about safety, they wouldn't have allowed teams to intentionally rifle balls out of the field of play to their Human Players as part of normal game strategy. I'm surprised we haven't seen anyone field side get hurt from one of these shots.

[Lil' Lavery]

Ya, you know, other than life altering, dementia inducing concussions (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/league-of-denial/).
Does an offsides increase the risk of concussions?

[cgmv123]

Does an offsides increase the risk of concussions?

Yes, since the down is replayed (unless the offense declines, which isn't an option in FIRST), an offisides creates an extra play, which is an additional potential for concussion.

[Bob Steele]

You guys are confusing offsides with false start...
false start stops the play...so no EXTRA PLAY
offsides the play continues so yes you have an EXTRA PLAY

But in the end the foul does not add time to the game so the amount of time played is the same therefore the game does not have more time for possibly life-changing injuries and concussions and such ...

sorry ...

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Yes, since the down is replayed (unless the offense declines, which isn't an option in FIRST), an offisides creates an extra play, which is an additional potential for concussion.

Ummm ... no it does not.

The clock still ran and time was taken off. The only time it adds a play is at the end of a half or end of the game if it was the defense causing a penalty.

[Karthik]

Does an offsides increase the risk of concussions?

Yes, absolutely. An offside is the result of a player getting a head start on the play, lowering the ability to react of the opposing team. This is precisely why the play is blown dead in cases where the defender is "unabated to the quarterback."

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Yes, absolutely. An offside is the result of a player getting a head start on the play, lowering the ability to react of the opposing team. This is precisely why the play is blown dead in cases where the defender is "unabated to the quarterback."

Offsides does not cause the concussion ... thus it is a minor penalty -- 5 yards.

A blow to the head is a personal foul because of that exact safety issue ... thus a major penalty --- 15 yards.


This is exactly what FIRST is trying to do with its penalty system.


and while I agree that 50 points is a "match killer", it basically is FIRST saying "don't do this".

JM(NS)HO

[Karthik]

Offsides does not cause the concussion ... thus it is a minor penalty -- 5 yards.

A blow to the head is a personal foul because of that exact safety issue ... thus a major penalty --- 15 yards.


This is exactly what FIRST is trying to do with its penalty system.


and while I agree that 50 points is a "match killer", it basically is FIRST saying "don't do this".

JM(NS)HO

Agreed, however a 15 yard penalty in football is mere pittance compared to the "match killer" 50 point penalty in Aerial Assist.

[inquiryteacher]

Definitely Yes.

In the regional we just competed in the number of fouls was ridiculous and decided the outcome of many of the matches. Students from many teams where disgusted, disheartened, and discouraged. They were not really judged for their design or performance excellence, but more often for incidental or inconsequential fouls.

This year was a cleverly designed contest as it allowed for the inclusion of even the most inexperienced teams in game play. Teams without the skills or resources to build complicated apparatus are able to compete and even complete important scores to quickly complete cycles. But the amount and severity of the fouls is significantly disproportionate. Some of the fouls are very difficult to call an some are quite subjective. Adult delays after scoring (relighting the pedestal) caused more the one speedy youngster and alliance team to suffer. Incidentally, the students got to enjoy double jeopardy (two fouls - one offense) as the balls were almost immediately back in play giving them little time to realize their mistake and sealing the fate of the match.

The same teams who were cleverly included this year are also the most at risk. The simple apparatus necessary to compete often lack the sophistication to quickly be moved out of harms way. Asking for students to design a bot with allowances for a 20 inch overhang, and then repeatedly dinging them for contact within the perimeter of another bot is a design flaw in the contest. This type of contact should have been expected without the addition of any safe zones and bots should be designed sturdily, to withstand the rigors of the contest.

While there naturally should be some sort of penalty associated, We will likely see teams exploiting this flaw to gain foul points as the weeks go by, as I believe I have already witnessed a few times. It will decide contests and it is simply to easy for them not to.

This contest design flaw will likely influence design and creativity next year, as students will be asked to design around not fouling, instead of letting their more ingenious designs come to light. Interestingly enough, our team was chosen as an alliance partner in the finals, not due to our stellar performance in the regional, but simply because with a few modifications, it made it almost impossible to foul.

[xXhunter47Xx]

No.
This is unfair to week 1 and week 2 regional teams who have already played and have lost because of unintentional tech fouls on their end. If you lower them, then that means we would have to play all the week 1 and week 2 regionals again because of changes made in the rules.
The rules that tell both teams and refs how fouls/tech fouls should be assessed have been around since kickoff. Teams should have already known about what causes foul/tech foul and designed/practiced around not causing said fouls.
Every single team has had at least 6 weeks to know the rules of the game. Lowering tech foul points for something that everyone knows will cause an infraction is unacceptable. The biggest tech foul I've seen is HP over passing their border. The human player should have it ingrained in their mind that they cannot pass the border that was set by FIRST in the HP zone.
Other tech fouls sometimes cannot be avoided, sometimes they're even unintentional, but if you play their game you play by their rules. No exceptions.

[Gaurav27]

It is important to note that teams have looked the penalties carefully throughout the build season and designed accordingly. As mentioned above there are penalties that are more dependent on strategy alone.

That being said, I feel reducing the technical foul values will definitely make the game outcomes better. In the meantime, I feel little things such as talking to your alliance partners about preventing penalties and implementing strategies that minimize the risk of incurring penalties, definitely helps.

I agree with Billy here, matches will be more interesting and perhaps will also be less controversial.

[Chris is me]

No.
This is unfair to week 1 and week 2 regional teams who have already played and have lost because of unintentional tech fouls on their end. If you lower them, then that means we would have to play all the week 1 and week 2 regionals again because of changes made in the rules.

This alone is horrible logic. Let's spite teams for over a month of regionals and championships just so people that have already played don't feel bad? If it's broke, fix it.

It's broke, by the way. No doubt about that.

[FrankJ]

Definitely Yes.


The same teams who were cleverly included this year are also the most at risk. The simple apparatus necessary to compete often lack the sophistication to quickly be moved out of harms way. Asking for students to design a bot with allowances for a 20 inch overhang, and then repeatedly dinging them for contact within the perimeter of another bot is a design flaw in the contest. This type of contact should have been expected without the addition of any safe zones and bots should be designed sturdily, to withstand the rigors of the contest.

While there naturally should be some sort of penalty associated, We will likely see teams exploiting this flaw to gain foul points as the weeks go by, as I believe I have already witnessed a few times. It will decide contests and it is simply to easy for them not to.


This was addressed in Team Update 2014-3-04
G28

Initiating deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside the vertical extension of its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements.

A ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER may be penalized under this rule if it appears they are using that element to purposefully contact another ROBOT inside its FRAME PERIMETER. Regardless of intent, a ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER that causes damage to another ROBOT inside of its FRAME PERIMETER will be penalized, unless the actions of the damaged ROBOT are the catalyst for the damage.

[mathking]

The logic of it being unfair to week 1 and 2 teams is a bit flawed anyway. All of the teams at those regional and district competitions had to compete with the same rules. Making rule changes to improve the game is perfectly legitimate. In spite of frustrating problems sometimes from our bot, this game is really growing on me. Well crafted strategy can easily compete with amazing robots. (Though well crafted strategy employed by the amazing robots is hard to stop.) So I would love to see some of the foul values reduced and I think it would improve the game.

[mrnoble]

No. The OP cited G40 specifically, and safety rules are ones that shouldn't ever lend themselves to strategic decisions ("if I play in such a way that I might violate this rule, I'd still statistically have a chance at an advantage"). The GDC addressed the "pinkie" problem with their update last week. Students who grudgingly accept that they can lose a game by putting their hand in the arena, and thus will try to avoid the penalty (and the wrath of their alliance partners) are students who are NOT losing an arm to a fast-moving machine. I've seen industrial accidents and this game definitely has the potential to produce one. Keep the 50 points.

[xXhunter47Xx]

This alone is horrible logic. Let's spite teams for over a month of regionals and championships just so people that have already played don't feel bad? If it's broke, fix it.

It's broke, by the way. No doubt about that.

Okay, I'll give you that.
But there's been 6 weeks to know the rules. Maybe the HP got into the heat of the moment and tossed the ball in without paying attention. TF for whatever alliance he's on. He should already know that it was a TF.

A better suggestion.
Give a little more leeway in tech fouls, or at least the G40 one. There are a lot more technical fouls that do deserve a 50 point penalty.
Let's say you lowered it to 20 points.
Red alliance has 2 robots that can throw and 1 can catch and hit one pointer.
Red alliance accidentally commits a G12 against Blue alliance.
20 point penalty to Red.
Red goes for truss shot, the second red bot catches and goes for high goal and makes it, all in an amount of time for it to not be considered an extended amount of possession.
30 points, already made up for the Tech foul and got 10 points to spare.

Now lets keep it the way it is, at 50 points.
Now Red is still behind 20 points.

For G40 infractions, give it just a little bit more leeway. But for other tech fouls (like in the example) I'd say keep it the way it is.

[billylo]

Athletic sports' scoring system is a good place to learn from. The systems have been refined over many many years by large communities.

Football: Very few (if any) single foul directly gives an opponent some points, let alone point values that would swing the outcome of 59% of important matches in one foul.

Hockey: Fouls like tripping, high sticking, too many men on the ice, results in the offending player going into the penalty box for 2 minutes. The offending team is crippled and forced to play defence; but again no points are automatically awarded to the opposing team. For fouls that prevent a clear scoring opportunity, a penalty shot is given. You still need to beat the goalie to score on the given penalty shot.

In both cases, sufficient and seasoned referees who officiated the same game for years are there to help with minimizing mis-calls.

So, our situation is a combination of both problems (high penalty values and difficulty to make reliable calls.)

Changing rules mid season is never ideal. But, the question remains: are we better off doing nothing and "suck-it-up"; or make adjustments to make it better for a large number of games remaining in 2014? Reminder: many teams can only afford to play in one regional.

Hope this helps. Keep the conversation going! Thanks.

[Chris is me]

Okay, I'll give you that.
But there's been 6 weeks to know the rules. Maybe the HP got into the heat of the moment and tossed the ball in without paying attention. TF for whatever alliance he's on. He should already know that it was a TF.

This isn't teams being stupid (always) - these are hard to avoid, incidental infractions that do not affect the game at all. Teams have gotten G40s for catching a ball thrown at them by field reset with just a bit too much force. Teams get tournament ending technicals for a ball bouncing in their robot, returned to the floor faster than an out of bounds ball would have.

For G40 infractions, give it just a little bit more leeway. But for other tech fouls (like in the example) I'd say keep it the way it is.

Your example really, really trivialized how easy it is to score quickly. If teams racked up 30 points that fast frequently, this wouldn't even be a problem.

[xXhunter47Xx]

Take this with a grain of salt because I wasn't able to view all the matches, but at the SD Regional, very few fouls were called. Only a G40 here and there and some parts flying off.
So I don't see it as a huge problem, but others may. G40 is really the only big problem I see, and that can be easily fixed.
My statement still stands that there are a lot more Tech Fouls than G40 that deserve the 50 point penalty.


Your example really, really trivialized how easy it is to score quickly. If teams racked up 30 points that fast frequently, this wouldn't even be a problem.

In the OP G40 was mentioned. I was trying to say that G40 should get more leeway, but other tech fouls deserve 50 point penalties. G40 is really the only one that really skews the end results, where other ones like G12 in my example are not commonplace in the game.

[Woolly]

Yes.

Agreed, however a 15 yard penalty in football is mere pittance compared to the "match killer" 50 point penalty in Aerial Assist.
Absolutely! I don't think FIRST anticipated the heavy defense being played this year. As a result, they anticipated higher match scores. For regionals and districts fouls should be 10 points, and tech fouls should be about 25, with a re-calibration for Championships based on what kind of scores are seen at the district championships.

Also, A more fitting penalty for G40 would be to disable the entire alliance at fault for 5-10 seconds, and give a tech foul if the human player entering the field was strategic or consequential.

[xXhunter47Xx]

Also, A more fitting penalty for G40 would be to disable the entire alliance at fault for 5-10 seconds, and give a tech foul if the human player entering the field was strategic or consequential.

This is actually more along the lines of what I was thinking.
I couldn't come up with it because I'm being distracted by unimportant non-robot things like homework, but to Chris is me specifically this is more what I meant.

[jman4747]

Yes.

What I don't understand about the "don't change it" arguments is you assume the 50p acts as an effective deterrent to crossing an invisible plane. If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. The penalty does not work. It's like saying jail time prevents crime. And for as many times this 50p foul has been called I again ask how many students were in actual danger and how many were hurt? It is obviously not a very good deterrent.

Inconsequential violations of G40 should be a 20p. If you touch or almost touch a robot then 50p. And for the love of dozer, MOVE THE TAPE BOX BACK. If you want to be more safe make it harder to actually touch the robot. If the point actually is students not touching the robot in the match, make it harder to touch.

This isn't about cheating or unfair advantages. If the kid is a little too excited give him a warning.

[mrnoble]

Yes.

What I don't understand about the "don't change it" arguments is you assume the 50p acts as an effective deterrent to crossing an invisible plane. If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. The penalty does not work. It's like saying jail time prevents crime. And for as many times this 50p foul has been called I again ask how many students were in actual danger and how many were hurt? It is obviously not a very good deterrent.

Inconsequential violations of G40 should be a 20p. If you touch or almost touch a robot then 50p. And for the love of dozer, MOVE THE TAPE BOX BACK. If you want to be more safe make it harder to actually touch the robot. If the point actually is students not touching the robot in the match, make it harder to touch.

This isn't about cheating or unfair advantages. If the kid is a little too excited give him a warning.

Regarding jail as a deterrent (not wanting to start a non-robotics debate, but it bears noting):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090518111726.htm

I'd rather not use the argument that no one's been hurt yet to lower the consequences for a safety violation. We don't celebrate 10 years without an accident in the shop by relaxing the safety rules.

[AcesPease]

Yes.

What I don't understand about the "don't change it" arguments is you assume the 50p acts as an effective deterrent to crossing an invisible plane. If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. The penalty does not work. It's like saying jail time prevents crime. And for as many times this 50p foul has been called I again ask how many students were in actual danger and how many were hurt? It is obviously not a very good deterrent.

Inconsequential violations of G40 should be a 20p. If you touch or almost touch a robot then 50p. And for the love of dozer, MOVE THE TAPE BOX BACK. If you want to be more safe make it harder to actually touch the robot. If the point actually is students not touching the robot in the match, make it harder to touch.

This isn't about cheating or unfair advantages. If the kid is a little too excited give him a warning.

The technicals acted as a deterrent where we played. Human players were careful. Only a couple teams trapped or stole opposing balls. And most contact was bumper to bumper. This is a very rough game with the fouls, lower point technicals would allow teams to "take the foul" to stop their opponents, that can not be what you have in mind.

[Nathan Streeter]

Having attended Granite State (week 1) as a team and having reffed UNH (week 2), I think there are some issues... but I honestly don't think G40 is one of them.

The only "issues" with G40 are that many teams just don't train their human players well enough. Honestly, most of the high-caliber teams get close to no G40 infractions... it's usually the teams that stuggle to field a working robot or hardly read the rules that consistently get G40s. G40 is serious - it's about safety and with humans that close to the field of such a violent, high-speed game putting hands in the field is serious! When the GDC relaxed G40 more this weekend to allow human hands up to the field barrier when a robot isn't nearby, I think they made it as lenient as it should be. Human Players just need to learn how to follow it!

That said, G26-1 bugs me... at both events I never saw it called on teams doing "chokehold" defense (what the rule was intended for)... every time I saw it called it was on a robot that was trying to inbound the ball. Teams shouldn't be penalized for accidental or non-strategic infractions... please change G26-1, FIRST! This was honestly a silly rule that we refs had to put a fair bit of energy into enforcing.

The fouls/tech-fouls are waaaay too high. Last year's game had similar scores to this year's (perhaps *slightly* lower)... and the fouls were 3 and 20. For some reason FIRST decided to up it to 20 and 50! I agree that 3 and 20 are on the low side, but 20 and 50 are overwhelmingly high! My recommendation: 10 and 30.

TL;DR... G40 is the team's problem; G26-1 is silly; make fouls 10 and 30 instead.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Yes.

What I don't understand about the "don't change it" arguments is you assume the 50p acts as an effective deterrent to crossing an invisible plane. If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. The penalty does not work. It's like saying jail time prevents crime. And for as many times this 50p foul has been called I again ask how many students were in actual danger and how many were hurt? It is obviously not a very good deterrent.

It's not about how many came close, or how many were hurt. This is FIRST saying "Do not do this" or you will lose.

It is an easily preventable foul. Teach your HPs to pay attention to what they are doing and you can prevent <G40> fouls.



Inconsequential violations of G40 should be a 20p. If you touch or almost touch a robot then 50p. And for the love of dozer, MOVE THE TAPE BOX BACK. If you want to be more safe make it harder to actually touch the robot. If the point actually is students not touching the robot in the match, make it harder to touch.

This isn't about cheating or unfair advantages. If the kid is a little too excited give him a warning.

It's not that easy. Some venue cannot move the HP box back 12". There's just not enough space. Literally.

... and we're not talking about cheating or unfair advantages, we're talking about rules that have been put forth as part of a competition. They are part of the challenge, and as annoying and unreasonable as they may (or may not) be, they are still part of the challenge.

[Matt_Boehm_329]

we're talking about rules that have been put forth as part of a competition. They are part of the challenge, and as annoying and unreasonable as they may (or may not) be, they are still part of the challenge.

I think this accurately sums up my opinion on the situation. We have known the cost of tech fouls since kickoff. If they were changed now, the balance of the game would swing too far mid season. It's like saying halfway through football season: "Oh ok now you cant touch the QB" We would be playing a different game weeks 1-2 and 3-6

[sircedric4]

I could get my head around leaving the penalties but two things need to happen immediately.

The first is they have to improve the real time penalty score updating. If you dont know you are fouling you cannot correct. Both match 2 and match 3 of the Arkansas regional finals did not show any penalties on the scoreboard throughout the matches. The score at the end of the match indicated blue alliance wins. Field techs started to pull down the field after match 2. Referee deliberation on the sideline happened after the game buzzer and penalties were applied against the blue team giving enough points to the red team to win. This exact thing happened in the 3rd match. This gave the appearance that penalties were being made up after the fact to force a certain alliance to win. It gives the appearance of referee bias and is not healthy for inspiration or for FIRST. This is a side effect of subjective harsh penalties and is unacceptable without some change.

Here are videos of those two matches. Notice the score change at the end of the video:

Match 2: http://youtu.be/YA5JtkWG6QA
Match 3: http://youtu.be/J9nOrCgKn0Q


The second thing that needs to happen is to put either a physical barrier you can see or move back the human player boxes if safety is indeed the reason for G40. Right now the nebulous yellow tape plane is entirely too subjective for a consistent experience across all the regionals. Some refs are being too strict and others too lenient. It must be made consistent.

[Doc Wu]

I think one of the reasons some penalty values are that high is to prevent them from being made for a strategic reason.

For instance, when an opponent has possession of a ball with three assists in place, a desperate defender might decide it was worth the penalty if it's value were worth less.

Safety and consistency also weigh in. Safety needs to be strongly encouraged. If a human player got a 10 point penalty, they might get a word from their coach. When they get a 50 point penalty, they hear about it from the whole team.

Consistency is not having confusion on which fouls are worth how many points. I know, the scoring system takes care of most of it, but understanding the score in the stands is easier if they are all the same, not various amounts.

In any event, I've seen many penalty-free matches, so it must be working. I don't think changing now that competitions are underway would be appropriate.

[jman4747]

I think this accurately sums up my opinion on the situation. We have known the cost of tech fouls since kickoff. If they were changed now, the balance of the game would swing too far mid season. It's like saying halfway through football season: "Oh ok now you cant touch the QB" We would be playing a different game weeks 1-2 and 3-6

I know "we" have known the cost of tech fouls since kickoff and how to avoid them as well as the potential risk of crossing this barrier. The point of this is people who don't. To many of whom will be more or less unknowingly putting themselves at risk with a foot of air protecting them. We can't ignore the issue because we know to be careful with it. We don't design cars without airbags because people generally know how not to crash. We shouldn't assume everyone is as knowledgeable about this barrier/rule/hazard.

[Keiko]

I think this was very intentional.

I don't see FIRST changing the values either.

This is a game that may not allow powerhouse teams to win every match they play. It's all dependant on their alliance partners. That's why this year the middle to low seeds have been making it farther in the eliminations in comparison to other years. It's also a year where its not so common for the first seed to pick the second seed.

You could argue that loosing due to penalties is discouraging to many teams. But what about the teams on the other side? The ones that are winning?

There are events where the same team always dominates. The creation of the wildcard is proof of that. For teams that may only get to compete in one regional per season, it can be very discouraging to loose year after year. That's discouraging for the students, and ultimately for many of them, to STEM. Winning a regional can make a huge difference for a team. It can kickstart a mediocre team to strive for excellence in future years. If this game is giving a chance for more teams to win, I would say thats a big plus.

On the other hand, teams that have already reached their peak, and are among some of the best, could find very discouraging to loose after all the work and time spent perfecting a robot to play a game which many think is flawed.

It looks to me like this game is giving more teams a chance to win. In a way, this game is levelling out the playing field. Walking into a regional in the past, you may have a good idea who's going to win. This year is the opposite. Its anyones game.

This is a game where your only as strong as your weakest link, unlike other games. It's different, and I believe that it was in the GDC's intentions to have it played this way.

[Foster]

Learn the rules, understand the system, deal with it like everyone else has to.

he GDC addressed the "pinkie" problem with their update last week. Students who grudgingly accept that they can lose a game by putting their hand in the arena, and thus will try to avoid the penalty (and the wrath of their alliance partners) are students who are NOT losing an arm to a fast-moving machine.

I work at a major chemical company. Safety is #1. Safety trumps everything. Always.

All we need is one roboteer injured at a match. It may not seem to be obvious but you, the roboteer is the most important thing. I think the penalties are harsh, but I'm not willing to exchange your safety for a better score.

G40 is harsh. Sorry. To be honest, I don't like robot competitions that the "human player" makes a difference. Robot drivers good, interaction in the game, not so much. But the rule is about safety. Deal with it. Or don't put a human player out.

[nlknauss]

I also disagree with the idea of changing the values of penalties. It would be unfair to the teams who've completed their competition season already and would probably change game play strategy. All rules having to do with human safety are good for me too. Our students can get seriously injured in a game like this and should think about their interactions with the field and the robots.

The penalty for possessing or controlling an opponent's ball to me is much like pass interference in football. The opportunity for a clean catch and possession by a robot must be allowed in order for this game to be played the way it was designed. If there was only one ball for both alliances to possess, I would understand the concern.

[sircedric4]

You could argue that loosing due to penalties is discouraging to many teams. But what about the teams on the other side? The ones that are winning?

There are events where the same team always dominates. The creation of the wildcard is proof of that. For teams that may only get to compete in one regional per season, it can be very discouraging to loose year after year. That's discouraging for the students, and ultimately for many of them, to STEM. Winning a regional can make a huge difference for a team. It can kickstart a mediocre team to strive for excellence in future years. If this game is giving a chance for more teams to win, I would say thats a big plus.


I dont want to follow this line of thought to its ultimate conclusion which is if you have nebulous enough penalties and make them harsh enough and allow no recourse, replay, or protest then you can simply have the referees choose who win. Yay!

This game already is developing that particular appearance and reputation but I find it extremely hard to believe that was FIRST's intention. I hope they will continue to listen to those in the trenches playing the games and improve the rules to have a equitable, consistent and ultimately safe and fun game. I personally feel they have a ways to go yet.

[Keiko]

if you have nebulous enough penalties and make them harsh enough and allow no recourse, replay, or protest then you can simply have the referees choose who win. Yay!

If the penalties are called correctly, then refs aren't the ones choosing who wins, its the drivers and/or designers.

If we're talking about penalties that aren't being called properly, well thats different.

I attended both a week one and week two event and there was much improvement on penalties being called. I would hope that by week four or five, most penalties will be called correctly.

[EricH]

The first is they have to improve the real time penalty score updating. If you dont know you are fouling you cannot correct. Both match 2 and match 3 of the Arkansas regional finals did not show any penalties on the scoreboard throughout the matches. The score at the end of the match indicated blue alliance wins.

If you had reffed at all this year, you would have known that it's pretty challenging for a ref to input a foul, while still calling all the other stuff they need to call. Often, it's easier to give a half-hearted attempt at calling the foul, and input it at the end, especially with all the other things you have to track. It takes a good 3-5 seconds to input a foul and get back to the scoring screen, not counting time to wave the flag (if you even have one), as well as call to the rest of the refs with what the call was, during which time someone could score a truss-and-catch or a high goal to end a cycle with 3 assists. Miss the latter call, and watch every team in that alliance scream at ya.

So if the ref who sees a foul is on "goal patrol", that is, ending the cycle when the ball scores, then their best option is often to radio the foul to the rest of the refs for signalling and input, particularly if the ball they're tracking is in their end of the field. They don't have flags at those stations (at least, at IE they didn't). Then you gotta check with the head ref at the end of the match to verify that somebody entered it (and get it fixed if it wasn't) and let the head ref know what exactly was called. That way maybe the announcer can announce the right penalties, teams can question, maybe make adjustments.



The one other thing: If you're trusting the realtime scoring, I pity ya. You haven't learned the first thing about FRC's realtime scoring: Don't EVER trust the score on the screen before the match is over and the final score is announced.

[brandon.cottrell]

Even though my team won our first regional ever because of a technical foul, I still strongly agree. It felt like we had the match that was supposed to exist (a 3rd final match) taken away from us. The enemy alliance surely didn't deserve such an anti-climatic defeat.

[billylo]

Even though my team won our first regional ever because of a technical foul, I still strongly agree. It felt like we had the match that was supposed to exist (a 3rd final match) taken away from us. The enemy alliance surely didn't deserve such an anti-climatic defeat.

GP in action! Thank you!

What if we borrow an idea from hockey? Since these fouls happen in teleop, if it happens, indicate to the offending alliance right away; and depending on the severity / safety implications, either one, two or all three driving teams have to step back behind the auton line for x number of seconds?

This emphasizes point must be scored and victories must be earned...

what do you think?

[sircedric4]

If you had reffed at all this year, you would have known that it's pretty challenging for a ref to input a foul, while still calling all the other stuff they need to call. Often, it's easier to give a half-hearted attempt at calling the foul, and input it at the end, especially with all the other things you have to track. It takes a good 3-5 seconds to input a foul and get back to the scoring screen, not counting time to wave the flag (if you even have one), as well as call to the rest of the refs with what the call was, during which time someone could score a truss-and-catch or a high goal to end a cycle with 3 assists. Miss the latter call, and watch every team in that alliance scream at ya.

So if the ref who sees a foul is on "goal patrol", that is, ending the cycle when the ball scores, then their best option is often to radio the foul to the rest of the refs for signalling and input, particularly if the ball they're tracking is in their end of the field. They don't have flags at those stations (at least, at IE they didn't). Then you gotta check with the head ref at the end of the match to verify that somebody entered it (and get it fixed if it wasn't) and let the head ref know what exactly was called. That way maybe the announcer can announce the right penalties, teams can question, maybe make adjustments.


The one other thing: If you're trusting the realtime scoring, I pity ya. You haven't learned the first thing about FRC's realtime scoring: Don't EVER trust the score on the screen before the match is over and the final sc:ore is announced.

So instead of improving the system, identifying the weak points and maybe getting the overworked refs some help I should just suck it up? I dont think so. I have been around FIRST enough to know the real time system hasnt always been reliable. I am pointing out weaknesses. I am hoping we can get rule changes to alleviate stresses on refs or more assistance for you guys. I am pushing to alleviate the appearances that you guys are what is controlling the score and not the robot and human players. Elimination or changing of game changing penalties is one approach in a multi-throng attact.

I am hoping FIRST will take these lessons to heart, will improve their systems and make this game better for everyone. There is no worse feeling then having a won regional taken back from you because the refs have to sit on the sideline and hold debates, except maybe the doubt that you might only have won because of penalties. This game's rule are the direct cause of this and should be fixed or if not fixed then the communication of the penalties should be fixed. No one else should have to deal with that same scenario again. We all want to inspire students, right?

[mrnoble]

I am dividing the issue of penalties into three categories:

1) Safety. These are non-negotiable, unless it can be shown that the penalties are not sufficient to prevent safety hazards. In that case, the penalties can be augmented (through physical changes to the field, or game play changes), or the penalties can be increased. G40 fits that description for me, and as such I am not in support of reducing it, ever. This year is particularly prone to violent play, and 140 lb. robots are never safe anyway.

2) Logistical challenges. These might be addressed in a number of ways, and as has been shown in the update last week (and numerous times in FRC history before), usually helps alleviate the bulk of the issues. Lexan shields on the bar, an additional ref, additional training for field personnel, software fixes, etc. These are completely legit to discuss and make suggestions, and the intelligent people in the GDC are likely coming up with solutions to these very problems almost as quickly as they occur.

3) Non-safety penalties. If matches are being swung by penalties that, in hindsight, are valued incorrectly (up or down), and they don't involve a potential safety hazard, then it is reasonable to suggest and implement fixes. It is not unfair to teams who competed in earlier weeks to make the game better for those who competed later. There is no possible way FIRST could beta test every level of gameplay enough to prevent some of the problems we've seen, and I'm sure they will continue to fine-tune or overhaul as necessary to make the game more fair and more enjoyable to watch and play.

But no hands anywhere near robots, ever.:mad:

[jman4747]

I am dividing the issue of penalties into three categories:

1) Safety. These are non-negotiable, unless it can be shown that the penalties are not sufficient to prevent safety hazards. In that case, the penalties can be augmented (through physical changes to the field, or game play changes), or the penalties can be increased. G40 fits that description for me, and as such I am not in support of reducing it, ever. This year is particularly prone to violent play, and 140 lb. robots are never safe anyway.



On safety: Words and numbers on paper don't increase safety, action, physical constraints, awareness, and well designed systems do. So far we have little action, no physical constraints, more awareness (many people still are not I'd wager), and many varying robot designs at the moment.

People can still accidentally touch the robot, especially if they aren't aware of the rules. PDF docs can't stop the movement of a student's hand during a match.

On point values: (While less critical than safety) The fate of an alliance doesn't need to hinge on one small mistake by one student on one team if that mistake was in fact small, inconsequential, not particularly unsafe, and innocent. If a student clearly reaches a few inches into the zone with a robot nearby than have at it. Otherwise it isn't worth it.

[Nyle]

Also, A more fitting penalty for G40 would be to disable the entire alliance at fault for 5-10 seconds, and give a tech foul if the human player entering the field was strategic or consequential.

This would be an interesting alternative to the current foul system, but it would have to work around a number of potential issues in it’s implementation, so it would be infeasible to implement this year.

If suddenly disabled, some robots may perform actions that could be very undesirable. For instance, my team’s catapult is locked back with an electromagnet prior to firing, so in certain situations a sudden disable could cause us to fire the ball in whatever direction we were facing in, which may be into the stands, significantly increasing the time it would take for the alliance to complete that cycle.

My other major concern would be the potential for a robot to foul during this period. They would be unable to prevent themselves from accidentally catching an opponents ball, back off from a pin, or (if this were in a different game) prevent themselves from hitting an opposing robot in a protected zone. Some of these could be engineered around or fixed with exceptions in the rules, but for others this would not be feasible.

Probably the most viable way to implement this would be to add a third game mode which would allow the code to control the robot, but not allow it to read input from the driver station. This would make most, but not all, of the problems mentioned avoidable.

[jmcrawford45]

This post was written when I was still very emotional about the Arkansas Regional. I would like to apologize to the teams and the personnel that I said harsh words against. 16, 4500, and 3937 did great throughout the competition, including the eliminations. I am sorry that I diverted this thread from a serious discussion about issues with the game to whining about rule inconsistencies.

[Damiaen_Florian]

Yes.

A regular foul will still do the job of keeping the human players safe just fine. 20 points is still a significant benefit to the other alliance, giving the incentive to be cautious while playing, and for the teams who don't have extreme offensive power it won't make it nearly impossible to come back from in a match, as we've seen in a lot of matches thus far.

[sircedric4]

The original post was redacted so I will remove the copy here. :-)

I have never claimed that we were biased against, just that to an outside observer it may appear that way because the penalties were not showing up real time. Further review of our Regional Finals match on the drive home showed the penalties that we incurred were legitimate penalties. Our disappointment is not with the Arkansas Regional, its personnel, venue, or other teams at the event. We had a wonderful time and wish the winning alliance all the best in their future games and at World Championship. They won the games playing with the same rules we played to.

Our beef is with the harsh and subjective penalties associated with the game Aerial Assist. Being on the field is a high stress environment for anyone much less over-stressed refs and high school students. Mistakes are easily made, and having so many penalties in the game, and making them worth so much is our issue. An inconsequential mistake that happens to be observed at that time can cost a team their game. That is why I agree with this petition that the technical fouls should be lowered, changed, or the safety zone improved to decrease the likelihood of bad feelings about this game.

[jmcrawford45]

Our beef is with the harsh and subjective penalties associated with the game Aerial Assist. Being on the field is a high stress environment for anyone much less over-stressed refs and high school students. Mistakes are easily made, and having so many penalties in the game, and making them worth so much is our issue. An inconsequential mistake that happens to be observed at that time can cost a team their game. That is why I agree with this petition that the technical fouls should be lowered, changed, or the safety zone improved to decrease the likelihood of bad feelings about this game.

I want to apologize to you for associating you with my above post, as it was entirely out of line both for FIRST and this site. At the time, I was still bitter about a game and regional that was entirely different than what I expected it to be. The mountain of foul points awarded after matches and the field issues in this year's game makes it easy for someone as stubborn as I to say "it's the field team's fault" or "this was rigged." When it's all said and done, the alliance that best played the game and adhered to the rules advanced from the Arkansas Regional. The personnel at the Arkansas Regional worked hard to provide a game that was a lot of fun. I deeply regret this post and would like to ask that it not be associated by the reader with my team.

[Swan217]

Just to add statistical fuel to the fire, 11% of matches in week 1 were "overturned" by fouls (Alliance w' more points lost). 11% of week 2 matches were also overturned by fouls. If you have 19 matches (including elims), odds are at least 2 of them will be decided by penalty points.

[Travis Hoffman]

Regardless of point value or when they are entered into the system, call the fouls consistently. When something is a foul one match and the exact same something isn't called the next, it's incredibly aggravating, and no amount of "they are just overworked volunteers", "it's the FMS", etc. is going to make teams quiet down. Teams should voice their concerns even LOUDER until the GDC acts and the game is restored to some semblance of consistency.

Most MLB teams can live with an umpire who sucks at calling balls and strikes equally for both teams. But if you get inconsistent calls that favor one team over the others, watch the sparks fly.

[Michael Corsetto]

My drive team has two coaches. Our Drive Coach and Our HP Coach. Our HP Coach is responsible for training every other HP we are with in Quals. Every match. Pre-match, she will take the HP's aside with a ball and show them how to the throw a ball into the field or into their robot. Every match. And almost every match, she tells me just how little HP's know about the rules and the game. This isn't new, often HP's don't know what is going on. What is new is their ability to literally throw away matches with the wave of their hand. We went 19 matches without a G40 at IE, but odds are our luck will run out soon...

This is a problem. FIRST, please fix it.

-Mike

[Meredith Novak]

My drive team has two coaches. Our Drive Coach and Our HP Coach. Our HP Coach is responsible for training every other HP we are with in Quals. Every match. Pre-match, she will take the HP's aside with a ball and show them how to the throw a ball into the field or into their robot. Every match. And almost every match, she tells me just how little HP's know about the rules and the game. This isn't new, often HP's don't know what is going on. What is new is their ability to literally throw away matches with the wave of their hand. We went 19 matches without a G40 at IE, but odds are our luck will run out soon...

This is a problem. FIRST, please fix it.

-Mike

We stressed this as well at Arkansas and FRC 16 human players were coaching others at the practice field. They did pretty well avoiding the penalties in the qualification matches, but the stress of finals is tough and they began getting careless; especially the less experienced teams.

[PayneTrain]

The foul points are not the problem, were not the problem, and will never be the problem. The problems are the same you run into every year, but more obvious than before by more people.

-Teams are not adequately prepared for game elements that have remained unchanged since day 1 of build season. This is an open field game with two total scoring objects. Anyone who has bothered to understand FRC or any other game could have pointed out the potential for heavy defense that may be hard to judge. You had 6 weeks to design for it. The "battle scars" happen every year, but a few people seem to have decided that this year it is easy to blame the game for being different from recent affairs than to blame inadequate preparation. When 422 broke our drivetrain, we went back and said "how can we redesign this so it is more robust?" We didn't ask "how many petitions do we have to start on Chief Delphi to change the game to suit us?" You had practice day at your events to work with your human player under the new rule. Whether or not the "safety zone" ruling is ideal or not, there is a way the human player can function in his/her box and have zero to no fouls ever occur. I made it a point to make sure the human player on our team never fouled. We worked with other alliance partners who had some real all star human players to refine the technique we used. if you wanted more clarification, you had the driver meeting, practice day, and the question box to voice concerns and ask questions about G40. There were as many teams at Alamo that never committed a foul on G40 as there were that committed multiple violations of it. Everybody gets the same manual. Everybody has access to the same team updates. Read them. Know them. Love them.

-Teams are not adequately prepared for alliance partners to have no idea what they are doing. This is a problem that is made much more significant by the way the game is played this year. Great teams and good teams will lose matches because their alliance partners will misrepresent, underperform, be ignorant of rules, have unforseen issues, lack basic understanding of the game... the list of fun goes on and on. With only one game piece this year, this should have been anticipated and adjusted to. Not to mention, changing foul points wouldn't do much. So an alliance partner violates G40. It will affect your ranking, which is unfortunate, but you playing your game is good enough for scout teams. If you have an alliance partner in eliminations that commits a technical foul, that is ENTIRELY on the alliance itself, with an exception for all rulings that I am about to get to.

Even though everyone has been conditioned to target, complain, and in return, receive hivemind karma from the annual Greater Toronto East Regional thread and drama factory, even 1114 representatives said that the fouls were the alliance's burden. So what if an opposing ball lands in your robot? For once, FIRST made it very clear that that kind of motion will be called as a technical foul every time, they made it clear that they will not change the intent of the rule, and stressed to teams that it was imortant to design around that situation not happening if you want to avoid the foul. If I lost a match on that foul I wouldn't necessarily be happy about it, but I wouldn't go full rage against the machine over it either--the rule has been clear for a while.

-Other issues in fouls dont necessarily rely in the points they give up, but how the fouls are administered. Referees, to my knowledge, aren't given an extensive, consistent supplement on the vague, subjective rules in the manual. While pinning is a very easy foul to call (much like a false start in football) some things like opponent possesion via repeated taps of the ball, exactly how to call G28 violations, etc., are far more subjective issues (subjective like judging at the 3000 winter Olympic events that are judged). The lack of concreteness to work with results in inconsistent calls. While the referee is consulting the angel and devil on their shoulder about a violation of G12, they could miss a G40 happening right next to them, while a G28 is almost certainly occuring at midfield, but by the time the tablet is mashed at like a phone during a Flappy Bird session, it's hard ot tell who-hit-who there, and there was probably an assist as well during all of that, and now there's a bumper on the field... see what I mean?

Foul points aren't the issue. It's the teams, the partners, and the calls. The same as it ever was, but now with more obvious ramifications and as a result, more bellyaching over the wrong things.

[CTHP]

I agree with many who have posted here that the 50 point penalty for a Technical Foul is excessive. It has been a game changer in some spirited matches; game play that was otherwise ruined by such an excessive penalty. And except for repeated cases of premeditated wrong-doing, how is it that one referee can assess this penalty on a team for a single occurrence of a mistake? The rules were written to cover repeated events but unfortunately included so-called 'strategic' (premeditated) events too. Apparently a single referee can read the minds of the drivers and separate innocent legal game play from a strategic, premeditated, intentional foul.

That being said, the 50 point penalty must remain since that is the way the game was designed. You can't change it now because so many others have already been judged and eliminated by it. Better to re-think it for the next season and consider that maybe more than one referee should personally and visually verify it before penalizing a team.

This could be the standard for a Technical Foul (taken directly from G22): "Violation: FOUL. If continuous or repeated violations, TECHNICAL FOUL.".

For a game (Aerial Assist) that depends on ejecting balls into the air with a suggested robot design specification to catch these balls, it seems cRaZy to say that the opponents ball was possessed by an a competitors robot just because it happens to land in their frame/chassis, as suggested by G12. Now if the competing robot drove around for the next 10 seconds with the ball keeping it from the other team, then we have an extended, strategic, maybe even repeated foul situation here but not just because in lands there momentarily. The same goes for balls colliding in mid-air, also described by G12.

In short, the foul is excessive and needs to be reassessed. Also, visual confirmation from more than one referee should be required before assessing such a large penalty. If not enough referees, then maybe a quick post-game examination of video evidence by the judging panel to verify that the single ref saw what he (she) said they saw.

:cool:

[Tristan Lall]

The foul points are not the problem, were not the problem, and will never be the problem. The problems are the same you run into every year, but more obvious than before by more people.

-Teams are not adequately prepared for game elements that have remained unchanged since day 1 of build season. This is an open field game with two total scoring objects. Anyone who has bothered to understand FRC or any other game could have pointed out the potential for heavy defense that may be hard to judge. You had 6 weeks to design for it. The "battle scars" happen every year, but a few people seem to have decided that this year it is easy to blame the game for being different from recent affairs than to blame inadequate preparation. When 422 broke our drivetrain, we went back and said "how can we redesign this so it is more robust?" We didn't ask "how many petitions do we have to start on Chief Delphi to change the game to suit us?" You had practice day at your events to work with your human player under the new rule. Whether or not the "safety zone" ruling is ideal or not, there is a way the human player can function in his/her box and have zero to no fouls ever occur. I made it a point to make sure the human player on our team never fouled. We worked with other alliance partners who had some real all star human players to refine the technique we used. if you wanted more clarification, you had the driver meeting, practice day, and the question box to voice concerns and ask questions about G40. There were as many teams at Alamo that never committed a foul on G40 as there were that committed multiple violations of it. Everybody gets the same manual. Everybody has access to the same team updates. Read them. Know them. Love them.

-Teams are not adequately prepared for alliance partners to have no idea what they are doing. This is a problem that is made much more significant by the way the game is played this year. Great teams and good teams will lose matches because their alliance partners will misrepresent, underperform, be ignorant of rules, have unforseen issues, lack basic understanding of the game... the list of fun goes on and on. With only one game piece this year, this should have been anticipated and adjusted to. Not to mention, changing foul points wouldn't do much. So an alliance partner violates G40. It will affect your ranking, which is unfortunate, but you playing your game is good enough for scout teams. If you have an alliance partner in eliminations that commits a technical foul, that is ENTIRELY on the alliance itself, with an exception for all rulings that I am about to get to.

Even though everyone has been conditioned to target, complain, and in return, receive hivemind karma from the annual Greater Toronto East Regional thread and drama factory, even 1114 representatives said that the fouls were the alliance's burden. So what if an opposing ball lands in your robot? For once, FIRST made it very clear that that kind of motion will be called as a technical foul every time, they made it clear that they will not change the intent of the rule, and stressed to teams that it was imortant to design around that situation not happening if you want to avoid the foul. If I lost a match on that foul I wouldn't necessarily be happy about it, but I wouldn't go full rage against the machine over it either--the rule has been clear for a while.

-Other issues in fouls dont necessarily rely in the points they give up, but how the fouls are administered. Referees, to my knowledge, aren't given an extensive, consistent supplement on the vague, subjective rules in the manual. While pinning is a very easy foul to call (much like a false start in football) some things like opponent possesion via repeated taps of the ball, exactly how to call G28 violations, etc., are far more subjective issues (subjective like judging at the 3000 winter Olympic events that are judged). The lack of concreteness to work with results in inconsistent calls. While the referee is consulting the angel and devil on their shoulder about a violation of G12, they could miss a G40 happening right next to them, while a G28 is almost certainly occuring at midfield, but by the time the tablet is mashed at like a phone during a Flappy Bird session, it's hard ot tell who-hit-who there, and there was probably an assist as well during all of that, and now there's a bumper on the field... see what I mean?

Foul points aren't the issue. It's the teams, the partners, and the calls. The same as it ever was, but now with more obvious ramifications and as a result, more bellyaching over the wrong things.
That's pretty much how I see it as well. While I recognize the potential utility of regulatory changes to compensate for undesirable conditions, I don't think that's a good resolution in this case.

First of all, we're not talking about matters of law that have far-reaching and severe consequences; we're talking about a game that everyone is playing because they want to, knowing that the game has a set of rules that are intended to apply to the exact situations at issue.

Also, it's not clear that there's even a truly equitable resolution here. Might it not be worse, overall, if the first two weeks were played with a fundamentally different set of strategic tradeoffs and enforcement priorities? What does that do for teams' expectations in the long term? Is it fair to the teams who designed to the original set of rules? Or who played during the first two weeks and won't have a chance to play again?

[TheMadCADer]

A lot of people seem to be hung up on the safety factor of the human players, but I don't think that's a valid argument for keeping the foul, I'd say its more of an argument against using humans. This is a robotics competition.

What I think the GDC should have done was make every team build an inbounding robot along with their normally fielded robot. At the times where the pedestal is dark in the game as-designed the inbound robot is disabled and the human player pre-loads it with a ball. When it is enabled you have a single button (built in, right next to the E-stop) to initiate a preprogrammed inbound action, then the inbounder is disabled once the ball is back in play (when a ref enters the first assist). To ensure the inbounding robot cannot activate while being pre-loaded, only the human player can push this button. Inbound robots would be allowed to freely extend into the field and touch alliance robots.

Ambitious teams could build inbound robots capable of catching and place them down field to do the popular truss catch routine that currently uses a human player. This could earn a small point bonus (say, 5 points to an inbound robot and 15 for a normal catch). Inbound robots placed down field would be enabled at all times and would allow for the human player to act as a third driver with inputs limited only by the current operator console space limits. These robots would be roped off with a safety barrier during the match. If no inbounder is placed down field and in all other cases, balls that exit the field will be thrown back into play with reckless abandon by field reset crew members at a significant distance from the field. If you want to keep control of your ball, then keep control of your ball.

The six week build period is busy enough without an extra robot to design and build. As such, inbound robots would not be bagged and are not subject to withholding allowance rules.

[FrankJ]

Things have actually improved. Those "more experienced" teams should remember LOGOMOTION. Fouls for touching things in the middle of the field.

First had to issue a special update that you could not use a foul strategy to win.

Warning: Previous years rules have nothing to do with this years game.
From Logomotion update 16
It has come to our attention that some TEAMS have concluded a ‘one move win’ is possible under the
following scenario:
A blue ALLIANCE ROBOT is in the blue ZONE. A second blue ALLIANCE ROBOT is outside the ZONE, but in the general vicinity. A ROBOT from the red ALLIANCE, exiting its LANE, crosses near the second blue alliance ROBOT . The second blue ALLIANCE ROBOT intentionally pushes the red ALLIANCE ROBOT in to the blue ZONE. The red ALLIANCE ROBOT contacts the first blue ALLIANCE ROBOT. This would result normally result in a YELLOW CARD for the second blue ALLIANCE ROBOT and a RED CARD for the red ALLIANCE ROBOT per Rule <G32>. However, if this were to occur during an elimination match, this would result in the entire red ALLIANCE being disqualified per Rule <T13>, and a ‘one move win’ by the blue ALLIANCE. Referees will be instructed that an attempt to win a MATCH in this way, by the blue ALLIANCE in the scenario above, would be considered particularly egregious behavior under Rule <T09>, resulting in a RED CARD for the blue robot and thus a disqualification of the entire blue ALLIANCE under Rule <T13>. As any attempt at this behavior would necessarily precede contact, in the scenario above, of the red ALLIANCE ROBOT with the blue ALLIANCE ROBOT in the blue ZONE, the blue ALLIANCE disqualification would take precedence over the red ALLIANCE disqualification, and the red ALLIANCE will be declared the winner of the MATCH.

[KalliL]

I believe that SOMETHING needs to be done about these technical fouls. My team just got back from Gull Lake district event, and it was terrible. Just about every match was decided by foul points. My team racked up 100 points in fouls and we honestly didn't do anything to cause the fouls. This was a seriously unfair call, but I'm not going to go into detail on it, but it was completely unfair. Every other match there was 2 or so fouls and it's very hard to recover from them, especially because of this games nature...

[EricH]

-Other issues in fouls dont necessarily rely in the points they give up, but how the fouls are administered. Referees, to my knowledge, aren't given an extensive, consistent supplement on the vague, subjective rules in the manual.[...] but by the time the tablet is mashed at like a phone during a Flappy Bird session, it's hard ot tell who-hit-who there, and there was probably an assist as well during all of that, and now there's a bumper on the field... see what I mean?I highly suggest volunteering to referee. I know for a fact that there's a supplement illustrating various concepts--two or three, actually--and "how to call the game". It's pretty extensive over the more common/nasty fouls. And then there's the whole "referees as scorekeepers", which I think I've expressed my opinion on. Be a lot easier if the refs could just call fouls.

My team racked up 100 points in fouls and we honestly didn't do anything to cause the fouls. This was a seriously unfair call, but I'm not going to go into detail on it, but it was completely unfair.
If you racked up 100 points in fouls, you had to have done SOMETHING. For example, maybe your human player took the ball off the pedestal before it was lit and entered it into play? (Or maybe jumped out of his box 5 times?) There are a lot of ways to get a hundred points in fouls, and not all of them are obvious. (Two G40 violations would do it, for another example.)

If every other team was called for the same offense, after committing it in the same way, it's not an unfair call. It's only unfair if it is called differently for one or two teams than for the rest of the teams.

[PayneTrain]

I highly suggest volunteering to referee. I know for a fact that there's a supplement illustrating various concepts--two or three, actually--and "how to call the game". It's pretty extensive over the more common/nasty fouls. And then there's the whole "referees as scorekeepers", which I think I've expressed my opinion on. Be a lot easier if the refs could just call fouls.


I'd love to volunteer as a referee and other KV positions as much as possible but this year proved to have too many things going against me to go out and try that stuff. I did figure that referees had a supplement to communicate to them from the GDC what the intents are behind the rules and when a subjective decision needs to make its way into an objective penalty. I'm not really behind referees keeping score this year, but they should be tracking possessions. Scorekeepers can easily track obvious scoring objectives being completed: high/low goal, truss/catch, and dead ball/ended cycle. Referees are almost required to track possessions since a portion of them are judgement calls. Not like that is ideal, but this game makes it difficult to take possession calls away from the referees when awarding them for assists but still have them call fouls for possession of the opponent's ball.

[billylo]

Thanks for all the candid and professional commentary here.

Here is our next step:


Create a simple 3-question opinion collection form for the community. Link is here (http://goo.gl/PbxyPf). This form enables us to look at other alternatives too.


Many of you have expressed clear preferences on this thread. If you can take 10 seconds to fill out the form, it would be great.


If you don't mind, please help spread the word to gather thoughts from students/mentors/volunteers who may not read CD regularly.


I have collected 24 feedbacks since last night. 19 Yes (changes required, different types) and 5 No (no changes to existing rules) Will provide summary updates as I progress.

Thanks again for taking the time.

[

Disclaimer: this issue has not affected 610 too much one way or the other. We have a relatively experienced group and should be able to handle different types of rules.

However, I really feel for new and old teams who get to play only once a year: 1468 teams (53.0%).. Imagine you are not a regular participant at champs, spent 6 weeks of sweat building a good robot, worked hard to fund raise to play about 10-15 matches; ended up losing important matches because of 50pt G40, G28 or others that are inconsequential, unintentional fouls that have little safety implications? The stats are clear. ONE tech foul would swing the results of 59% of final matches.

It's not too late to prevent FIRST from losing students/mentors who otherwise would have loved this game and continue to love this thing called #omgrobots.

]