FIRST releases Team Update #18

[Aidan F. Browne]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss reaction changes made to Triple Play by FIRST in Team Update #18: http://www2.usfirst.org/2005comp/Updates/Team_Update_18.pdf

Considering all the emotion behind these issues that has been displayed in various threads over the past few days, please keep the discussion to the update and its affect on Triple Play, without rehashing what has been discussed in a variety of other threads in the past few days.

Thanks!

[Daniel Brim]

I just want to say a hardy "Thank you" to FIRST for addressing these issues as quickly as they could. You see? They are listening to us! Just be glad that they were addressed before these regionals, so we won't have as much as a blow up this weekend as we did last weekend!

-Daniel

[Mike]

Not to sure I like the de-scoring update. Way to hard to ref, I think it will only lead to more arguments.

[Mike Norton]

I think it is to late to change the rule about the pushing robot becomes the de-scorer.

This would of had a different outcome in Fl regional.


I know FIRST wanted to see robots score a lot this year. But they should of made this rule earlier. Don't change the rules part way through the competition.

[Ali Ahmed]

I think it is to late to change the rule about the pushing robot becomes the de-scorer.

This would of had a different outcome in Fl regional.


I know FIRST wanted to see robots score a lot this year. But they should of made this rule earlier. Don't change the rules part way through the competition.

I agree with that it might have changed the outcomes of some matches and therefore, some regionals but they might not have seen this until this past weekend and so made the changes ASAP.

[Beth Sweet]

I think it is to late to change the rule about the pushing robot becomes the de-scorer.


I think that it's never too late to try to fix something that's wrong. There was so much of a problem over it that they had to do something. Probably should have been done earlier, but I'm happy that it's been done now.

[Aidan F. Browne]

I know FIRST wanted to see robots score a lot this year. But they should of made this rule earlier. Don't change the rules part way through the competition.Mike,

I think its important to remember the purpose behind the FIRST Robotics Competition is not to find the best robot. The big picture is the experience that all the competitors take away with them in preparing for the competition and every time they leave a Regional or the Championship.

That said, I don't see any problems in changing rules every week if necessary in order to make each successive week a better experience for all involved. (As long as the rule changes are not significant enough to invalidate any team's overall design.)

Since all teams competing in a given week or a given Regional are playing to the same set of published rules, the rule changes don't really have the potential of hurting anything.

Aidan

[Travis Hoffman]

Thank you for finally admitting it on paper - FIRST loves them their offense and isn't afraid to modify the rules to favor it. Well, that's certainly their prerogative. Sorry, all you teams who didn't have the resources to build capable arms but still had the means to develop good enough drivetrains to employ creative, non-damaging defensive strategies - your job just became that much tougher. If ya can't live up in the clouds with the big boys, you might as well just stay out of their way. :rolleyes:

Regarding the change to G18, I would only hope this applies if you are pushing the robot toward the goal. If you succeed in getting in between the robot and the goal and you push them outward, you shouldn't have to worry about any repercussions - how the heck can you claim that the pushing robot is descoring tetras they aren't even facing? Now, if you're pushing a capping robot toward the goal from behind, you were probably too slow in executing your defense, and you've already lost the battle. Go do something else.

As far as the *new and improved* 10-point safety penalty goes, I think it falls into the same category as the generic *overaggressiveness* penalty tacked onto G25. Meaning I don't think it's made the lives of refs, announcers, kids, and mentors trying to understand what's legal and what isn't any easier. The change also removed the requirement of mandatory disablement of robots who demonstrate unsafe activity. Now they *may* be disabled at a refs' discretion. Is that a safer approach to take, or simply one that is more offense-friendly?

It remains to be seen if the refs become any more consistent across the board. You can change the rules all you want, but if you don't effectively communicate a single, consistent direction on how to interpret them correctly, then you're still going to see the same old same old. Let's see what happens this week....

[Billfred]

I'll paraphrase Jessica Boucher here...

FIRST, you deserve a cookie.

Whenever we argue about a rule, we often try to get to the reasoning behind a rule. By putting in why FIRST is changing these rules, we now know the intended spirit of the rules. Hopefully, it'll make a difference in those gray areas that inevitably show up in the game.

[BRAVESaj25bd8]

Why do we have to play offense? I think FIRST should be encouraging creative and outside the box ways of thinking of this game. If you try to take away defense, I really do not think it will work. Teams will still play defense and they will receive this penalty. Unfortunately, a great defensive maneuver may now be the reason that an alliance loses.

[angelofsumthin]

yea i dont like it at all FIRST just killed an aspect of the game so now the robots will just go around and not bother n e one which kills the entertainment part of it im not saying kill the other robot but FIRST kills defense and it just so happens that our robot is a great pusher so yknow i mean im not freaking out its just annoying

[Elgin Clock]

OK, I'll be the one to say it.

In a competition where the underlying basis is the reward of millions in scholarships, life long learning experiences, and the joy of working together as a team there is one flaw.

Yes, the penalties.

In a microcosm such as FIRST where the goal is the reward of learning about science & technology the game structure totally contradicts the whole big picture.

What is instead of penalizing teams, we support them, by rewarding teams match by match who don't do something to merit a current penalty.

C'mon, this negative reinforcement has got to stop in a group who's goal is to inspire and reward such things as creative thinking and the knowledge you gain..

At least if it doesn't stop this year, then for next year don't make penalties as big a part of the competition that it has become this year.


<steps off of soapbox - for now...>

[angelofsumthin]

hey
good answer
im just ranting yknow
im gonna have just as great a time at nationals as i would n e way so y bother
SUPPORT VEX!!!

[Billfred]

If you try to take away defense, I really do not think it will work. Teams will still play defense and they will receive this penalty. Unfortunately, a great defensive maneuver may now be the reason that an alliance loses.
I don't see it that way. The update says that the Game Design Committee wanted Triple Play to be an offense-slanted game. So of course they're going to make it hard. Defense is not impossible in Triple Play--it just takes some skill and finesse to do it without getting buried under a mountain of penalty flags.

Moral of the story? Practice your defensive techniques well, either with an old robot or even a weighted-down box. Get skilled at the forms of defense that the manual explicitly states are allowed. After all, you can't fight the manual.

[AIBob]

I personally like the updated saftey issues, they seem as though there will be more fair matches..
And of course: I have loaded the update to FIRSTsearch (http://www.bobfrank.org/?module=FIRSTsearch)

[David Kelly]

People complain about a rule and want FIRST to change it, then when FIRST changes the rule or clarifies it the same people complain about the new rule!!


I guess FIRST can't do anything right.... :rolleyes:

[Aidan F. Browne]

You can change the rules all you want, but if you don't effectively communicate a single, consistent direction on how to interpret them correctly, then you're still going to see the same old same old. *Sigh* ...as my Mom used to say, "You just can't please some people."

FIRST goes to great effort to do exactly that: effectively communicate a single, consistent direction on how to interpret the rules correctly; and they are extremely successful at it. There have been ~2,300 matches that have transpired thus far this season, and by the majority of accounts, the season is going great.

A lot of that success can be credited to the hard work of the folks at FIRST creating the Head Ref manuals, Head Ref training materials and constant communications all season long to the refs. Not to mention the hard work and dedication of the Head Refs themselves both in front of and behind the scenes. You don't see all the extra time they give up to participate in Head Referee Training at the beginning of the year, a weekly teleconference each week during the season, studying of the manual on their own time, and attending meetings Wed and Thursday nights at each regional.

Please give this tired argument a break! What else do you possibly want them to do?

And you are right about one thing... you can expect to see the the same old same old again this weekend! Another set of fantastic experiences for thousands of kids across the country. And once again, Mission Accomplished.

[Dave Flowerday]

Sorry, all you teams who didn't have the resources to build capable arms but still had the means to develop good enough drivetrains to employ creative, non-damaging defensive strategies - your job just became that much tougher. If ya can't live up in the clouds with the big boys, you might as well just stay out of their way. :rolleyes:
Give me a break. I've seen rookie teams with practically no money, mentors, or facilities who built perfectly capable tetra-manipulating machines. I don't buy resources as an excuse for why teams build robots that are really only capable of running into other robots. Teams who were interested in manipulating tetras found a way, even if that meant basically just pushing them into the goals. After all, each side has 2 tetras already on the field (vision), yet they go unscored in many matches.
I think FIRST should be encouraging creative and outside the box ways of thinking of this game.
Do you honestly think that interfering with a robot trying to score or running into them again and again is "creative" and "outside the box thinking" (regardless of whether or not it's legal)? I don't.

[Ianworld]

I think its a change not necesairly positive but it defenitly won't hurt. I think it makes this game even trickier to play defense in. The penalities at the loading stations and now the chance of being called as the descorer seems a little too much. I know my teams robot never ever descorces a tetra. Its breakaway, it floats upward and has nothing that can catch inside the tetra stack. There are lots of robots though, where i've seen tetra manipulators that defenitly get caught. If a robot tries to play defense on a robot with a tetra manipulator that catches easily, its going to be the defending robot that takes the penalty. This basically leaves the only safe area to defend being the area between the goals and the loading stations, a very small area and even shorter time frame.

To be fair, I didnt' see too many instances where a pushing robot caused a stacking robot to knock over tetras.

[Travis Hoffman]

*Sigh* ...as my Mom used to say, "You just can't please some people."
Or many people, in this case. I'm just the one who started the thread. If I was alone in my opinion, no one else would have bothered to contribute to the discussion.


FIRST goes to great effort to do exactly that: effectively communicate a single, consistent direction on how to interpret the rules correctly; and they are extremely successful at it. There have been ~2,300 matches that have transpired thus far this season, and by the majority of accounts, the season is going great.
Unfortunately, effort doesn't always translate to satisfactory results. Trust me when I tell you that I don't doubt their well meaning good intentions. But more people have observed something different about this season's refereeing consistency compared to others; something that disturbs and frustrates them. I just wanted to give them a starting point to present their concerns and frustrations in one spot.



A lot of that success can be credited to the hard work of the folks at FIRST creating the Head Ref manuals, Head Ref training materials and constant communications all season long to the refs. Not to mention the hard work and dedication of the Head Refs themselves both in front of and behind the scenes. You don't see all the extra time they give up to participate in Head Referee Training at the beginning of the year, a weekly teleconference each week during the season, studying of the manual on their own time, and attending meetings Wed and Thursday nights at each regional.
That's wonderful. Why have some permitted falling tetras of doom and others disabled a robot upon a 1/32" violation of the vertical plane above the operator's station? Why do some call penalties for seemingly G25 legal pushing while others in the same week allow demolition derby-like tactics to go on unpunished? What is getting lost in translation this year? Why do we not seem to see any improvement as we move along? As we've progressed through this season, we're still seeing a bunch of reports of regionals and referee calls that are almost night and day when it comes to gameplay. There seems to be little success in even beginning to shrink the inconsistency. Maybe I'm wrong - truthfully, others have seen more of this than I have, but there have been many. Maybe with these changes, things will start to improve. But we can't say they have until we OBSERVE that they have.


Please give this tired argument a break! What else do you possibly want them to do?
I thought we were all about hearing equal sides of a debate, as long as we avoided personal attacks and the like. I really can't do anything anyway, like I said, all I can do is wait and see what transpires this weekend, just like the rest of us. As always, rule changes mean nothing until we observe how they are applied. We'll re-evaluate and react after the regionals are over. However, based upon other rules written in a similar manner to the ones that were just changed, and based upon the reported mixed interpretations of these rules refs have tended to apply at different regionals, I tend to believe that nothing much will change. Unless, of course, FIRST is doing something additional or different behind the scenes to coordinate these new changes that they are not telling us about. That would be wonderful, and best of luck to them in their efforts.


And you are right about one thing... you can expect to see the the same old same old again this weekend! Another set of fantastic experiences for thousands of kids across the country. And once again, Mission Accomplished.It's that smaller but no less important set of disappointing, heartbreaking, and sometimes dangerous experiences for these kids that I'm more concerned about. Yes, this stuff happens sometimes - it cannot completely be avoided. But this year, such things seem to be happening much more frequently, and I'm hoping FIRST will take the initiative to minimize their frequency of occurrence as the season draws to a close.

Best of luck to FIRST in trying to improve the experience for everyone - THANK YOU for trying; now let's see you take it on home and git r done. If and when that happens, everyone feel free to tell me to shut up if I ever open my big mouth again.

[Travis Hoffman]

Give me a break. I've seen rookie teams with practically no money, mentors, or facilities who built perfectly capable tetra-manipulating machines. I don't buy resources as an excuse for why teams build robots that are really only capable of running into other robots. Teams who were interested in manipulating tetras found a way, even if that meant basically just pushing them into the goals. After all, each side has 2 tetras already on the field (vision), yet they go unscored in many matches.

Do you honestly think that interfering with a robot trying to score or running into them again and again is "creative" and "outside the box thinking" (regardless of whether or not it's legal)? I don't.
The new modified rule refers extensively to "pushing", not ramming. I thought ramming has been, is, and always will be illegal, and no new rules are necessary to make it even more so. Last time I checked, Rule G25 defines pushing low as legal. Now pushing low and causing an offensive bot to knock tetras off a goal because they can't handle the force of that legal maneuver is considered a violation of the rules for the pushing robot. My interpretation of this new rule must have differed from yours. I wonder if referees will have the same differences of opinion with their interpretation....

[IMDWalrus]

OK, I'll be the one to say it.

In a competition where the underlying basis is the reward of millions in scholarships, life long learning experiences, and the joy of working together as a team there is one flaw.

Yes, the penalties.

In a microcosm such as FIRST where the goal is the reward of learning about science & technology the game structure totally contradicts the whole big picture.

What is instead of penalizing teams, we support them, by rewarding teams match by match who don't do something to merit a current penalty.

C'mon, this negative reinforcement has got to stop in a group who's goal is to inspire and reward such things as creative thinking and the knowledge you gain..

At least if it doesn't stop this year, then for next year don't make penalties as big a part of the competition that it has become this year.


<steps off of soapbox - for now...>
As nice as the idea is, it's darn near impossible to carry out. Finding teams that don't do anything "bad" during a match would rely much more on perspective than the penalties ever could. Penalties can be defined and can be assessed in a relatively exact way; there isn't a way to define good behavior that comes to mind.

More importantly, rewarding good behavior is essentially the exact opposite of a penalty. If you give ten points to Alliance A instead of taking ten from Alliance B, the result is still a ten point shift in favor of Alliance A. If you were to go further and attempt to spell out what constitutes the good behavior - which is really the only fair way I can think of to do it - the system is essentially penalties in reverse.

Keeping it simpler for the referees to assess and for the audience to follow is the best method to take. I like the idea and I agree with you that it would be nice, but I just don't see how it could work.

[Steve W]

Kudos on FIRST correcting the descoring rule.

As for the other changes I believe that it again leaves too much up in the air. 10 pt safety penalty and "maybe" a DQ. 10 points for suspending over the players station and maybe a shut down or DQ. What will the refs call from regional to regional. Now instead of just being shut down for breaking the plane there will be a 10 point penalty. Is the "breaking the plane" rule rescinded with the new update? We shall see.

As for the explanations of an offensive style game, they are again sending mixed messages. Watch the animated video that Dave made, that is shown once or twice every regional, and it says that pushing , shoving and defensive play is allowed (encouraged it seems by the video). It gives different strategies and warns robots about their possibility of tipping. Enough said before I too am attacked.

[servo175]

yea i dont like it at all FIRST just killed an aspect of the game so now the robots will just go around and not bother n e one which kills the entertainment part of it im not saying kill the other robot but FIRST kills defense and it just so happens that our robot is a great pusher so yknow i mean im not freaking out its just annoying

i have to agree. you design a robot to excell in a certain area or aspect of the game. winning robots win because they dominate one aspect and are valuable in that sense to other teams. i think its unfortunate that this happened to miss daisy but i know it will effect more teams. but its a done deal so its time to just move on..?? i guess

[Daniel Brim]

There is a difference between criticizing FIRST and constructively criticizing FIRST.

For example, I have seen numerous posts (some have even drug head refs onto CD) looking like this:
We lost the regional because of the refs call! They don't know the rules! They are biased!How does this help? This post can be considered flaming. It may present a problem, but it doesn't present a solution.

Constructively criticizing may look something like this:
There was a call today at Magnolia regional that may have cost our team the regional. I realize that the regional is over, and head ref is human and he may have missed something, but that is okay. In the future, we can fix it by (add idea to make things better here)I'm sure FIRST does not mind something like this; 1. Because it is constructive and 2. Because it is Graciously Professional.

It is constructive criticism, from people like Travis, which has led to these rule changes. We should embrace the fact that FIRST cares about us enough to pay attention to us. If we were in a sport, they would say something like "Forget them!" We are truly lucky to have a dedicated staff that will respond to us.

-Daniel

[Amanda Morrison]

Enough said before I too am attacked.

This thread was aimed to discuss the influence Update #18 would have on the 2005 game for the rest of the year. Instead, it has (like many others) gone way off-topic and turned into another inappropriate thread.

Like the others, it will now be closed. For those who replied to the actual topic, thank you.