View Full Version : Are The Penalties Too High?
Now that we have a weekend of regional competitions under our belt, I would like to bring up a question that I heard many people asking during the NASA/VCU regional:
Why are the penalties so high?
I am, of course, extrapolating that question out of comments that sounded more like:
-"These penalties are absurd!" or,
-"The penalties are ruining the game this year" or,
-"Why should we get an automatic loss (effectively) just because our alliance partner accidentally bumped an opposing robot while they were in the loading zone?"
As you might imagine, I didn't have time to ask each person who made such an exclamation about their personal opinions concerning the penalties. I figured the best way to get an idea of what the FIRST community thinks about the penalties this year would be to start a thread and include a poll.
Back to the question at hand:
Why are the penalties so high?
I believe there is an answer for this, and I had the good fortune to speak with Mr. Lavery about the subject. Basically, the creators of this year's game were very intent that NO ONE violate rules that could potentially endanger the health and well-being of the field attendants and referees. I agree with that principle and I think that it is most definitely working.
As the competition in Richmond progressed, the number of penalties (particularly those for interfering with a robot in the loading zone) decreased. Play became much safer [for the field attendants and referees]. The reason, I believe, is because teams knew that they could not afford to receive a penalty and still have any chance at winning the match. Before the quarterfinals our team (Team 619) met with our alliance partners and the one phrase that was repeated the most: "No matter what happens, NO PENALTIES."
I know there were plenty of people in Richmond who felt that the penalties were much too high this year. Please feel free to post your opinions and your underlying rationale.
-Andrew
i_am_Doug
07-03-2005, 17:28
well at corvalis (dispite recent events like what happen with are bot) sorta high. i think that why the rules are so high is because they think about safety more than anything... but thats just me. ;)
Greg Marra
07-03-2005, 17:35
There is no "Yes they are too high" option that doesn't say they are ruining the game.
I feel the penalties are towards the high end, but by no means are they ruining the game. I think the only thing that would be game-ruining about penalties would be if they were inconsistantly called.
Corey Balint
07-03-2005, 17:44
I feel the penalties are towards the high end, but by no means are they ruining the game. I think the only thing that would be game-ruining about penalties would be if they were inconsistantly called.
I definitely agree with that. Although, i must say the penalties, allow no wiggle room this year. You have to be perfect to win, which in many cases is impossible to do. Last year most penalties were 10 pointers, which could easily be made up with two balls. This year, you need 4 tetras to make up the 10 point penalties, or 10 to make up the 30. I really dont see many teams stacking over 9 a round by themselves, making it that much harder to score/play. I like that FIRST is trying to get us to play fair/safe/gp and making us try that much harder, but i do think these penalties are a bit harsh.
Maybe it isnt just the points being the problem, but the strict interpretations FIRST is using this year. The loadbearing issue as well as the touching of another bot in a loading zone are ones that come to mind.
Ali Ahmed
07-03-2005, 17:46
Yes I do feel the penalties are too high. But I feel that the only way to change it is at Nationals were you kind of start from scratch, where as if you changed it for the upcoming regionals, some teams might say that they were not given that chance. But you must also realize that those were the first week regionals and FIRST learns from them. As people have said, the penalties did go down significantly.
Shu Song
07-03-2005, 18:07
The rankings in the end don't truly reflect how a team is really doing just because of penalties. A very good team might be hit with constant penalties from alliance partners. In the end with alliance pairings, some potentially very good teams would be forgotten. Too many games were decided by penalties, and if it happens in elimination, it just makes the losing team feel even worse knowing that they could have won.
In any case, I am in support of penalties, but 30 pts in a game when scores rarely go higher than 40 is not right.
I don't think that the penalties are too high. FIRST wanted to discourage certain behaviors. Many teams do not take the time to avoid the impact of penalties, but they should. It is very easy to avoid penalties, just have you human player take care, and watch how you play defense. It is easy to play a certain style of defense and naver have to put the refs in a situation where they have to make a call.
I just think that penalties are easy to avoid if you prepare for them. Teams should spend more time talking about how to avoid penalties during their strategy sessions.
Good luck to everyone, and lets keep it penalty-free!
Rob
Rob Colatutto
07-03-2005, 19:36
As a ref, looking back at old rules and remembering my experiences last year, I would say the penalties are too high. Surely everyone remembers the 2002 game, where at first you got "a warning" then you would get a 1 point penalty if the refs thought you acknowledged that they didn't like what you were doing and you continued to do so. Then last years 10 point penalties, which I'll admit did make sense from a safety standpoint. But a little bit less this year than last year. Maybe the penalty system should be toned down a little bit, or maybe the game should be designed in a way such that penalties don't need to be given for safety reasons. Who am I to judge though, all I do is ref them and enjoy building. Just a bit of insight relative to older games of FIRST past.
-Rob
Ashley Weed
07-03-2005, 19:58
As stated earlier, the penalties are so drastic in "size" that it really puts a damper on your scouting techniques. An excellent team could be paired up in as little as three matches, where they are hit with one 30 point penalty in each, and loose all three matches, and therefore fall in overall rankings. When the game was originally designed, I don't think it was realized that the scores would be on an average of 40 points on the high side, and 20 points on the low side per match. If the first week regionals high scores of 70 points on the low side, to 90 points on the high end of the scale become our average for scoring over the next week, then this could self-correct the scoring situation. However, with the penalties being as high as 30, and the scores so low, we can all just be grateful that scores aren't negated in this years competition. :(
Joshua May
07-03-2005, 19:59
Nope, as Andy Baker said, the penalties are all part of the challenge of the game, its just one more obstacle to overcome and challenge us a little more, as well as keep the all-important safety of the robots and people.
I wouldn't say that the penalties ruin the game, they make the game more interesting and the penalties determine who wins in most matches. There are certainly a lot more being given out this year, but they also make the drivers and human players be more aware.
Beth Sweet
07-03-2005, 20:17
I don't think that the penalties are too high, I think teams need to learn to play the game by the rules. Penalties are part of this year's strategy. Maybe this game is a bit more complicated than we would like to think...
Bridgette
07-03-2005, 20:23
I don't think the penalties are too high either. My team is known for being somewhat aggressive in its defense, but we had no problem following the rules. Everyone on the drive team knew what would cause a penalty and we avoided them. It's that simple. I know that mistakes happen sometimes (we got a 10-pt penalty that we didn't deserve), but the refs' decisions are final. Everyone has to follow the rules, and while the penalties might be on the high side, they seem to be serving a purpose.
Alex Cormier
07-03-2005, 20:25
the penalties are respectably the correct amount of deductible points. the only thing you need to do to reduce penalties is communicate with your alliance members!!!!! it is easy to stay away from penalties for your own team but hard for the alliance.
Yan Wang
07-03-2005, 21:24
The penalties are fine. What you don't do is tell your alliance partner to not hit an opponent in the loading zone and then go do it yourself. This angers people like me. Play a fair game. Push, shove, race, but steer clear of what you know is wrong.
The practices matches are there for you to fine tune your driving and get used to a competitive, fast-paced game that requires split-second decision making in order to avoid the penalties. In two days, I committed only one 10pt penalty [accidentally]. Had I been a careful driver, I not only would've not committed the penalty, I would've picked up the tetra faster. In the end, I was to blame. Not the rules.
No. They are not. The reason the penalties are so high is b/c you know F.I.R.S.T. is all about safety which is very very good. The reson is b/c what if a robot is in a human loading zone and a robot hits it. Its going to move. Well they don't wanna take the chance of it hitting the human player and geting him/her hurt. Or for another example something that happened to me. I was pulling out of the human loading zone and a robot slames me in the side and knocks the tetra off almost swinging it into a judge. So I think the penalties are very fare because we don't won't people hurt especially the judges.
Pi Is Exactly 3
07-03-2005, 22:00
[QUOTE=TierraDelDiablo]The rankings in the end don't truly reflect how a team is really doing just because of penalties. A very good team might be hit with constant penalties from alliance partners. In the end with alliance pairings, some potentially very good teams would be forgotten. Too many games were decided by penalties, and if it happens in elimination, it just makes the losing team feel even worse knowing that they could have won.[QUOTE]
That's what happened to my team. I'm not saying our robot was incredible and penalties completely destroyed our chances, but our robot was undefeated for the first three matches of our regional and throughout the entire regional we did not get a single penalty called on our robot. Our partners however did get penalties called on them and that seriously affected our ranking when we lost the last 6 matches. I do think the penalties are necessary, but I don't think they should be that high.
richardp
07-03-2005, 22:40
Dave even said at tonight meeting that the penalties are there so the game is played a certain way (End of what Dave said). 10 and 30pts is also a number that they had to come up with before the matches so if they thought the scores would be higher then the penalties had less of an effect. Also they scores overall are going to get higher and penalties are not going to go down with time. This is where knowing the rules and updates are going to be essential. I know that they are going to change on few things its just a matter of time. Learn from the mistakes people in week one made.
Josh Fritsch
08-03-2005, 10:44
I believe that the penalties are too high also...however FIRST must take a stand and show their seriousness when it comes to the safety of the the people near the field...aka human players and volunteers. So...I am kind of pulled in both directions on this topic. I want to ensure the safety of the people around the field and by having a high penalty may be the only way to ensure this. However I do not want these high penalties deciding the outcome of the game on a more than common basis. The penalties need to be there, maybe a little less sever due to the scores of the matches so far, but maybe not given out unless an intentional break of a rule is evident. Someone brushing up against someone in the loading zone while moving past them does not constitute a penalty in my mind, but intentional pushing and slamming needs one. In any case, its all up to the referees and what they see to be appropriate in their own minds, and thats something you cant change.
Paul Copioli
08-03-2005, 11:09
The penalties are part of the game.
In qualifying rounds, our alliances steered clear of the far side of the field except to try and score a tetra on their home zone and we received no penalties.
In semi-final 1, match one we did not steer clear and 217 and 340 (same team) got tangled up near the opponents blue human loading zone. 340 was running blocker and we were trying to cap the far goal. In our collision we (either 340 or 217, too close to tell) touched 1507 while they were in the human loading zone. We received the 30 pointer and got the loss.
Was I upset? Yes. Was it our own fault? Yes. Do I blame the rules? Nope.
My advice for teams who have not played yet: stay clear from your opponents loading zones. If you must race to their side of the field to score or defend, pay very close attention to the loading zones. If you go to the other side of the field and touch someone in the loading zone don't complain about the penalties being too high. Work within the scoring and rules given.
At FLR, the most common penalty was human player related. The human player foot foul was called the most. We never received a penalty for not being in the auto load zone while receiving a tetra and very few teams did on competition day. What I did notice were teams trying the auto loader on practice day and noticing that they had a hard time getting in the zone. On Friday, those teams were loading from the human loading station.
This game is designed to be offensive, thus the 30 pointer for messing with teams loading. Safety is also a consideration, but not the only one.
Absolutely.
The penalties are too great in magnitude for scores that are to low. They are too easy to incur.
I disagreed with Andy Baker and Dave Lavery because this has gone beyond the "just avoid the penalties". I maintain that it is nearily impossible to not risk penalties and still have a competitive robot or strategy.
--Petey
I maintain that it is nearily impossible to not risk penalties and still have a competitive robot or strategy.
Sorry Petey, but you are just plain wrong on this point. I offer a specific point of empirical evidence: at the VCU regionals this past weekend, there were only four penalties assessed during the entire set of elimination rounds on Saturday afternoon (including the one DQ for agressive play). Teams learned what the penalties were and how to avoid them. In the total of 20 matches, teams were able to play the game very effectively, execute great strategies, and have very competitive interactions. And they were able to do it nearly "penalty-free" (as the announced kept repeating over and over and over and over and over...).
-dave
MikeDubreuil
08-03-2005, 12:25
Absolutely.
The penalties are too great in magnitude for scores that are to low.
...
I maintain that it is nearily impossible to not risk penalties and still have a competitive robot or strategy.
The serious penalties are their to keep the human player safe. The human player is solely concentrated on not causing penalties by their actions. They do not have time to watch for incoming robots like other field personnel do. Therefore, the penalties are warranted.
The less serious penalties associated with the auto loader is for the safety of the attendant. They too are solely concentrated on placing the tetra correctly, they shouldn't have to worry about your robot ramming them.
To have a competitive robot you must effectively play the game. This game was clearly designed to be offensive, to see which alliance can get to their loading zone and cap the most times. It is no accident that if you are playing a more defensive strategy that your robot could have a greater chance of getting penalties.
I must admit that I am surprised at the number of people who believe that the penalties are too high. There is one thing, that I don't think has yet been mentioned, that could shed some light on why this issue has been somewhat divisive.
After reading over the responses, it seems to me that most of the comments from the "penalties are too high" crowd are all going in a similar direction with regards to why they believe the penalties are too high:
In past years (except in 2001), you had ONE alliance partner. Your team was essentially 50% responsible for not earning penalties. This year, you have TWO alliance partners, and your team is, correspondingly, 33.3% responsible for not receiving a penalty. This, I imagine, is the hang-up.
The scores in the regional competitions thus far have proven the 30-point penalty to be a so-called "kiss of death." Discontent over the strict penalties has arisen because your team (who worked so hard to build a robot that could score tetras) can only be accountable for itself, leaving 66.6% of the responsibility for avoiding penalties to your alliance partners. This might even be acceptable, if you could instruct your alliance partners to avoid penalties and be completely certain that they would do so. However, this certainly is not the case. No one wants to have a victory thrown away because one of their two alliance partners didn't follow the rules.
Had the penalties in previous years been as high as they are this year, relative to the overall scores, I think that most people wouldn't consider the penalties to be too high.
-When a team is 50% accountable (as in past years) for the penalties incurred upon that alliance, the team feels as if they are in control. Penalties can and will be avoided.
-When a team is only 33.3% accountable, however, it seems like they are just in a crapshoot as to whether or not their alliance ends up with a killer penalty. I really hope neither of my alliance partners does anything dumb.
That said, I still think the penalties are appropriate because everyone knows how important it is that they be avoided. Even if you feel that your team is in a crapshoot, the odds are stacked in your favor because both of your alliance partners know how important it is to avoid penalties.
-Andrew
At Sacramento, there was one particularly agressive robot. (Not us.) We were up against them twice. They lost both times. The first time, they would have won- if they hadn't hit us in the loading zone and thrown us off. The refs initially ignored it, but when our coach complained, they corrected the score. The second time out, the same team fractured some acrylic paneling on our robot. To do that, they had to hit us hard- or fast- enough to climb our defensive wedge on that side and still hit hard. Another robot had a front wedge and was DQ'd for tipping.
My point is, that teams who disobey the rules need a penalty. If FIRST lowers the penalties now, then the first week teams will complain that they had it rough. I say that we just accept the penalties the way they are and try to avoid drawing them.
At the risk of posting a "me too" post, I think the penalties, while steep, encourage alliances to play smart and focus on being productive. They add an element of risk to playing aggressively in the opponent's zone, but should not affect an alliance which concentrates on scoring points rather than preventing the opposing alliance from making them.
From what we've seen on our practice field and what I saw on the webcasts, it appears that there are lanes through to the opposing end goals which a robot can use without risking 30 pt penalties. In the experience of teams which competed last week, is this correct?
Benjammin191
09-03-2005, 23:14
Absolutely.
The penalties are too great in magnitude for scores that are to low. They are too easy to incur.
I disagreed with Andy Baker and Dave Lavery because this has gone beyond the "just avoid the penalties". I maintain that it is nearily impossible to not risk penalties and still have a competitive robot or strategy.
--Petey
I have to disagree. Defensive play can be used just as well with the penalities in place as it could be without penalties at all. In the 2nd round of the championship match at FLR, our opponents only scored 4 points the entire match. This wasn't because of penalties (there werent any), but because of the excellent defense our alliance partner (team 494) played. They single-handedly defended the opposing alliance limiting them to 4 points and without getting a single penalty. Just stay away from the opposite team's loading zones and it shouldn't be a problem.
All you need is a driver who knows the rules to avoid penalities. Be agressive, play defense, but know the rules and dont break them.
Andrew Y.
09-03-2005, 23:18
from what i have seen, most teams only score about 20-59 points a game, and when a penalty is called, about 30 points is usually deducted.
Totally my opinion, but i think there are to many rules this year, there are penalties left and right
Ianworld
09-03-2005, 23:58
I have no problem with the size of the penalties. The really high ones are there just to keep the humans safe. That being said, I feel like FIRST should follow some of its own advice and follow the spirit of the rule. I've heard stories of robots that were obviously not playing defense or trying to cause any trouble to a robot in a loading station and were still given the 30 pt penalty. Something which very often turns the game around. Now, I dont' think the penalty should just disapear though if you accidentaly hit a robot in a loading zone. As has been said above you should steer clear. I feel like a 10 pt penalty in situations where robots were obviously not trying to interfere with the other robot is a good idea. Some sort of intermediary gap between "oops, i lightly touched you by accident, now i'm going to lose the game" and "I'm trying stop you from getting a tetra, lets go for one last second ram before they get into the loading zone. "
Also while I know penalities are part of the game, I feel like a major part of good game design is creating a game where the players are encouraged to test the boundaries of what is possible. This especially goes for FIRST competitions. Lasts year game penalities were almost never given, because teams never had a reason to break them. This year there are reasons to break them, even if you're not supposed to. Its almost like a war of psychology between game designers and the players.
Of course, besides the whole penalty issue, I think this years game has been shapping up to be a lot of fun. :)
I definetly agree that there are too many rules. My perception is that there are two ways to look at FIRST. One way is to look at it as a simulation of being an engineer. The other is to look at it as an exploration of technology. The fact is that the more acurate way to look at it is as a simulation of being an engineer. FIRST doesnt deal with cutting edge technology, so much as it gives students an opportunity to learn how to apply readily available older technology in an environment that is designed to simulate that in which an engineer would work. This is the reason there are so many penalties.
Ben Lauer
10-03-2005, 00:49
The penalties are excellent. When you were presented with the game, you were given rules. And it was your task to design and build a robot that could complete the task and play the game. You knew what penalties would be given for, and you cannot expect them to be lenient because they are hard to follow. You have to design a robot and control system that can adapt to change and be able to stay out of trouble. If your team keeps breaking rules and receives penalties then it is not because the rules are hard to follow, it is because your design was not developed to enough to easily follow them.
~benthos
Collmandoman
10-03-2005, 12:18
this has to tell you something...
no offense to anyone when I say this honestly
but this forum does not tolerate the questioning of FIRST.. even if it is well intentioned.. with the % over 50... it HAS to mean something
because if the poll shows 50% it is most likely MUCH MUCH higher
let the flame begin :(
I do believe that the penalties are too high, but I understand why they are so high. Our robot had an arm that could reach out 10 ft, and could seriously injure human players. However, that brings me to my next point. If FIRST truly wanted to protect us from the robots on the field, why do they have the human loading station in the first place? Putting a 30 pt penalty on an action isn't very helpful if someone were to get hurt.
I also believe that if a penalty has the ability to drastically change the results of a match, then that aspect of the match should be reconsidered. Our alliance outscored our opponents by 26 points, but an alliance partner bumped the opposing side in the human loading zone and we lost. So, for two reasons I dislike the 30 point penalty: it does not really protect the human player and it drastically alters the outcome of many matches.
The penalties are ridiculous. Absolutely, without a doubt, ridiculous.
Dean Kamen, in his annual speech, habitually compares FIRST to a sport. However, the penalties incurred in the 2005 game do not reflect any sort of penalty scheme in any sport in any part of the world. None.
When penalties completely affect the outcome of a game, they should not be called. This is why referees in basketball refrain from calling fourth-quarter technical fouls or ticky-tack fouls (fouls which are called on a technicality, but whose consequences had no effect on the game). The refs should NOT decide the outcome of a game. The talent of the players of that game should.
This, of course, touches on the main controversy with penalties in sports. If blatant penalties are not called, they may affect the game just as much as ticky-tack penalties that are. However, in general, sports referees consider the gravity of each penalty they give. Sports officials hate to decide games. Rightfully so.
30-Point penalties in the 2005 game therefore do not make sense. They determine the outcome of the game. As soon as a 30-point penalty is given, the match is effectively worthless, as the offending team no longer has any reasonable chance to win.
I am in no way saying the penalties in place are unjustly so. Obviously, most of the penalties are in place for good reason. The human loading-zone penalty protects human players, for instance. This penalty also protects a disabled robot from attack as a sitting duck.
Rather, I make the assertion that 30 points is a ridiculous value to be deducted from scores that often never even reach that number (in qualifying, at least).
Obviously, FIRST is trying to discourage dangerous behavior with a 30 point, game-nullifying penalty. However, I believe penalties should be worth 3 or 6 points (the equivalent of one or two tetras), just as basketball free-throws are shot to compensate for injustice. ALSO, in situations where a robot is endangering the safety of humans (an arm goes out of the field, etc), the offending robot should be disabled for a short period of time (15-30 seconds).
I believe this type of system would assess the gravity of each offense individually, and apply penalties accordingly. Dangerous robots are neutralized and will avoid this behavior in the future, but the round is not a lost cause.
Please, let the robots play. Let's find out who has the best team, not the luckiest.
pyroslev
15-03-2005, 20:17
I've had a bad experience with penalties. Upon reflection, and watching videos and doing som review, I don't think the penalties are high. I think it has more to do with the penalty assignments and items related to point-of-view.
Look on the brightside, at least there are no negative scores.
Chances are it will all be worked out by the time nationals roll around. If not, I have a feeling that things might stray from gracious professionalism
Terminator6
15-03-2005, 21:56
Obviously, FIRST is trying to discourage dangerous behavior with a 30 point, game-nullifying penalty. However, I believe penalties should be worth 3 or 6 points (the equivalent of one or two tetras), just as basketball free-throws are shot to compensate for injustice. ALSO, in situations where a robot is endangering the safety of humans (an arm goes out of the field, etc), the offending robot should be disabled for a short period of time (15-30 seconds).
problem being that by incurring a '3' point penalty by rushing the tetra and not being completely in the loading zone might allow the robot to get a 10 point row, making the '3' point penalty an acceptable comprimise. If FIRST allowed the teams to become sloppy in order to add the small raise in score then people will start to get hurt.
I believe this type of system would assess the gravity of each offense individually, and apply penalties accordingly. Dangerous robots are neutralized and will avoid this behavior in the future, but the round is not a lost cause.
i guess giving the refs more flexibilty would be nice, but the strict rule interpretations has won us some matches before so i cant say im objecting
Please, let the robots play. Let's find out who has the best team, not the luckiest.
its meant to be a game, and it really isnt about luck, its about which team can play the best inside the rules, and assessing large penalties has nothing to do with luck....
However, that brings me to my next point. If FIRST truly wanted to protect us from the robots on the field, why do they have the human loading station in the first place? Putting a 30 pt penalty on an action isn't very helpful if someone were to get hurt.
true, the 30 point penalty wont do anything for a hurt player, but it keeps all robots from ever getting into a situation that would cause that sort of injury, after the refs at VCU made it obvious that they were calling that rule strictly, robots on the opposing alliance stopped completely even when not necessary in case they might bump a tetra loading robot
The penalties are excellent. When you were presented with the game, you were given rules. And it was your task to design and build a robot that could complete the task and play the game. You knew what penalties would be given for, and you cannot expect them to be lenient because they are hard to follow. You have to design a robot and control system that can adapt to change and be able to stay out of trouble. If your team keeps breaking rules and receives penalties then it is not because the rules are hard to follow, it is because your design was not developed to enough to easily follow them.
When we were presented the game and given the rules we did not know what penalties would be given for. In the origina rules, <G15> (the rule concerning interference in a loading zone) was not nearly as specific as it needed to be in order for teams to form strategies. Then Update 4 gave examples to help clarify what would constitute a penalty and teams formed strategies around them. Then Update 15 (posted after the first weekend of regionals) redefined the rule again, contradicting at least one of the examples from Update 4:
Update 4:
Example 6
Robot "RED01" is in the red alliance loading zone, is already loaded with a tetra, and is waiting for a path to clear to the center goal before moving in to the rest of the field. Robot "BLUE01" approaches the loading zone, and blocks RED01’s attempts to leave the loading zone and score on the center goal. The robots come into contact several times while BLUE01 blocks RED01. No penalty is assessed to either alliance, provided BLUE01 acts within the limitations of <G21> that prohibit pinning for more than 10 seconds. RED01 is not retrieving a tetra, so no violation of <G15> has occurred.
Update 15:
The process of receiving/retrieving a TETRA is completed when the robot leaves the LOADING ZONE.
I understand that the penalties are necessary for safety, and I don't believe that they are too high. What I do believe is too high is the frequency at which they are called. I understand that bumping a robot while a human player is reaching inside it to place a tetra is a major safety hazard, and well worth a 30-point penalty. But I don't understand how one wheel of a robot rolling over the loading zone during a pushing battle, with the human player safely on the pressure pad, is worth a 30-point penalty. In my opinion, FIRST is ignoring the spirit of the rule and put most teams defensive strategies at a major disadvantage.
Jake I agree. The penalties are certainly not too high, especially since they are that way to keep field resetters and human players safe. It is the frequency at which they are called that I think is upsetting people. The referees are doing their job though, and its a tough job watching 6 robots so closely. I think perhaps they could use a little more logical judgement sometimes. For instance, in a round in Phoenix a disabled robot was given a penalty. Again, being a referee is a tough job. Maybe if there were more referees it would help to remedy the situation, but I don't believe the penalties are hurting the gameplay except in those strange circumstances. I don't think it hurt our team in the competition; it comes with all competitions or sports with this style. There will be "bad calls" that go your way, and some that don't. It's just a game, and its only part of the FIRST experience. It is just like the real world in this respect. The refs do their best, and everyone should do their best to avoid penalties. Maximize the fun everyone :D
I apoligize if I made any spelling errors, Spell Check seems to be malfunctioning currently. :D
-Steve
When we were presented the game and given the rules we did not know what penalties would be given for. In the origina rules, <G15> (the rule concerning interference in a loading zone) was not nearly as specific as it needed to be in order for teams to form strategies. Then Update 4 gave examples to help clarify what would constitute a penalty and teams formed strategies around them. Then Update 15 (posted after the first weekend of regionals) redefined the rule again, contradicting at least one of the examples from Update 4:
I understand that the penalties are necessary for safety, and I don't believe that they are too high. What I do believe is too high is the frequency at which they are called. I understand that bumping a robot while a human player is reaching inside it to place a tetra is a major safety hazard, and well worth a 30-point penalty. But I don't understand how one wheel of a robot rolling over the loading zone during a pushing battle, with the human player safely on the pressure pad, is worth a 30-point penalty. In my opinion, FIRST is ignoring the spirit of the rule and put most teams defensive strategies at a major disadvantage.
J_Horning
17-03-2005, 11:15
As a ref, looking back at old rules and remembering my experiences last year, I would say the penalties are too high. Surely everyone remembers the 2002 game, where at first you got "a warning" then you would get a 1 point penalty if the refs thought you acknowledged that they didn't like what you were doing and you continued to do so. Then last years 10 point penalties, which I'll admit did make sense from a safety standpoint. But a little bit less this year than last year. Maybe the penalty system should be toned down a little bit, or maybe the game should be designed in a way such that penalties don't need to be given for safety reasons. Who am I to judge though, all I do is ref them and enjoy building. Just a bit of insight relative to older games of FIRST past.
-Rob
Yes a warning is good..the refs can say what they expect...also consistently calling the penalities is fair.
nightrenegade00
17-03-2005, 21:48
i think that the penalties might seem high for the level of scoring in this years game but there are reasons behind most things. safety was behind the 30 point penalties. the safety for the human players and drive team. i think the reason is valid but the cost a bit too high. its only an opinion and its like a rear end (for lack of a better term), everyones got one.
-Crash
Wow i cant belive i just quoted my APUSH teacher. thats bad
tammuoisau
18-03-2005, 18:57
The penalties were fine. I just have a bit of disappointment when refs' call become inconsistent.
Daniel Brim
18-03-2005, 19:28
The penalties were fine. I just have a bit of disappointment when refs' call become inconsistent.
The penalties would be much easier to take if the refs were consistant. From what I've heard from our Phoenix travel team, there were two refs, one that called maybe one penalty every few matches, and one that gave out many penalties, especially for being in the HP zone. The "nice" ref would signal a team if he thought they were in a loading zone, enabling them to avoid the penalty, while the other would stand there waiting for a HP to load a tetra. It really cost some teams badly.
Terminator6
18-03-2005, 22:05
The penalties would be much easier to take if the refs were consistant. From what I've heard from our Phoenix travel team, there were two refs, one that called maybe one penalty every few matches, and one that gave out many penalties, especially for being in the HP zone. The "nice" ref would signal a team if he thought they were in a loading zone, enabling them to avoid the penalty, while the other would stand there waiting for a HP to load a tetra. It really cost some teams badly.
well inconsistent calling has always been a part of nearly every sport ever made, and people just have to live with inconsistant calling
i watch basketball way too much and as much as I yell at the TV for a bad call i understand thats just how the game plays out, becuase the refs are only human and cannot be perfect
so remember that refs are doing the best they can, and remember that you will get one ref that believes you should have looked at the rules and known better and another who wants to offer as much help as possible, its all part of the game
Kit Gerhart
19-03-2005, 12:28
This game is designed to be offensive, thus the 30 pointer for messing with teams loading. Safety is also a consideration, but not the only one.
I agree with Paul about safety not being the only reason for the loading zone penalty. It would be a vastly different game if there were not loading zone penalties, especially in the auto zone. Most teams would have a very difficult time picking tetras from the stand if they were being defended against while doing so. Still, if instead of 30 the penalty was, say, 10 points, there would be more "far end of the field" action which would make matches more interesting, and 10 points would certainly be enough to rule out "loading zone blocking and bashing" as a viable strategy.
Many points are being illustrated with basketball, so I will use soccer.
In soccer, there are penalties for going out of bounds (other team gets ball) andhitting the ball with your hand (same). But, the scores are usually very low. However, intentionally tripping someone or using hands in a certain area (unless you are a goalie) carries the penalty known as a penalty kick. The person who was fouled gets a kick at the goal. No one can interfere except the goalie, and he can't move until the ball is kicked. One penalty kick can win a game. One foul can equal one penalty kick, which can equal one loss.
The penalty system in FIRST is the same way. Small stuff may or may not affect the outcome. Big stuff probably will. Avoid the big stuff, and you should be fine. Avoid robots that look like they are in the loading zone.
Brandon Holley
20-03-2005, 20:42
The penalites for this years game are absolutely perfect. Basically anything that is considered breaking the rules is a 10 point penalty, a very easily dealt with defecit. The only one that could be deemed "unfair" is the 30 pt loading zone penalty. BUT THAT PENALTY MUST EXIST. You cannot have a robot slamming into a robot that is being loaded on by a human player just inches from it. That penalty is perfectly legit in my opinion.
yes, they are high but I wouldn't go as far to say that they are ruining it, and I feel that some penalties are necessary for safety's sake; however, when a team inadvertently bumps into a robot on the human player loading zone, that is very frustrating. I like the game, but I do think that if the human player's safety was such an issue, perhaps they should have created a new task, versus dealing out 30-point penalties. Then again, I think the human player's have a great role this year.
I was thinking (this would be rather strange though) that they could have created a zone like a rectangular extension to the field that way the robot would have to drive into it to get loaded, and it would be clearly difficult for an opposing robot to come in contact with the one being loaded. Just an idea...
The penalties are not too high but they are very inconsistent. At the Midwest Regional, one match team 79 was dogging this team all match, no penalty, but the very next match they did a little pushing, not nearly as much as the first match, and got disabled or a 30 pointer (i can't remember that) for being too rough. The refs are some times too quick with the calls and sometimes not quick enough. In my opinion I think that FIRST, for nationals for the refs, hold classes on when and when not to call penalties.
oh yea and by the way.............my team DOES NOT HAVE ANT PENALTIES!!!!!!!!!
dubious elise
31-03-2005, 16:25
As much as it is disappointing to lose an entire match over penalties, it does reinforce some crucial aspects of the game. 1) Safety first and to quote Ricky Q., 2) A good driver will always win over a good robot.
Everyone needs to remember to take their time. The only two times that I ever received human player penalties (and I'm sure Brian Beatty could tell you this one... :( ) were at BMR when I began rushing my actions in the quarter- and semi- finals.
Even though the matches are relatively short, taking that extra milisecond to make sure that your feet are in the box or that your hands are off the tetra before you leave it can determine an entire match. Likewise, as a driver, taking the extra precaution to avoid the loading zones or stopping a defensive maneuver on the count of 5 rather than 6 can make a huge difference.
Patience is key.
There is no way they are too high. I would like to point out however, that we've only accrued 1 penalty so far, so that could be a bias. I've actually seen a situation at Palmetto where a human player was loading a robot when another robot hit it(the team that was hit was our alliance partner, and as a human player I had a good view.) Luckily, this robot wasn't one that had an arm that extended out of the field to load, if it had that human player could have been hit pretty hard. The mere chance of getting hit by a robot is a pretty scary one, I hope it doesn't happen to anyone.
P.S. One of the reasons we stay away from penalties is because we have to do 30 push-ups for every penalty.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.