Rule G22 needs to be changed

[Dave Flowerday]

I think rule G22 needs to be changed. There are way too many penalties for breaking this rule and it's sucking the fun out of the game. It's so easy to violate this rule that most teams don't even know they've done it. Does anyone else feel this way?

My suggestion: change the rule so that it says that once you've fully entered a new zone, you cannot fully return to the previous zone. Example, if I completely cross the blue line, but then back up a little bit so half my robot is over the line, no penalty. However, if I continue to back up and fully cross the blue line in reverse, then the penalty is assessed.

I believe this would maintain the intent of keeping the traffic flowing in the correct direction but greatly reduce the number of penalties for incidental contact with a line after it's been crossed.

Way too many matches are being decided by penalties this year and that's not fun for the teams or the audience.

[SU 39]

I agree completely. It's difficult enough as it is to drive a robot amid all the traffic. I just saw a match where a team had 50 points worth of penalties, taking their 40 something score down to 0, giving the other alliance the win with only 20 or so points.

[Dave Flowerday]

For those who don't know G22:
<G22> Direction Of Traffic – ROBOTS must proceed around the TRACK in a counter-clockwise direction. Once a ROBOT has CROSSED a LANE MARKER or FINISH LINE, it shall not break the plane of the line by moving in the clockwise direction. A PENALTY will be assigned for each infraction.

[Cory]

I totally agree. It seems like upwards of 50% of the violations are occurring because teams get halfway into a new zone and encounter some sort of obstruction and need to back up to get around, and inadvertently get the penalty, or they try to pick up a ball while halfway in a new zone, etc.

[Vikesrock]

I think rule G22 needs to be changed. There are way too many penalties for breaking this rule and it's sucking the fun out of the game. It's so easy to violate this rule that most teams don't even know they've done it. Does anyone else feel this way?

My suggestion: change the rule so that it says that once you've fully entered a new zone, you cannot fully return to the previous zone. Example, if I completely cross the blue line, but then back up a little bit so half my robot is over the line, no penalty. However, if I continue to back up and fully cross the blue line in reverse, then the penalty is assessed.

I believe this would maintain the intent of keeping the traffic flowing in the correct direction but greatly reduce the number of penalties for incidental contact with a line after it's been crossed.

Way too many matches are being decided by penalties this year and that's not fun for the teams or the audience.

I get this feeling watching the webcasts as well. Between the ability to control the robot itself and the ability to see exactly where your robot is at on the other side of the field, it appears to be very difficult to get around traffic around the lines without getting a penalty.

With the large magnitude of a single penalty with relation to the magnitudes of the scores (at least 10% and anywhere up to 30%-50%) penalties appear to be deciding far more matches than they should.

Your suggested modification looks like it would keep traffic moving in the correct direction while getting rid of many of the penalties.

[Ross340]

I totally agree. It leaves arm robots at a loss. If they're required to cross to hurdle. I've seen a bunch of this.

[Vikesrock]

I totally agree. It leaves arm robots at a loss. If they're required to cross to hurdle. I've seen a bunch of this.

??

The initial crossing is already as written in Dave's suggested modification.An arm bot crossing the finish line to hurdle (having an appendage behind the overpass to hurdle I would assume) should be able to back up into the quadrant they were just in without penalty.

[Mike o.]

Robots do not get penalized until they have FULLY CROSSED the line, meaning that every part of the robot is in the new quadrant, and then their robot crosses/breaks the plane of the line in the clockwise direction. I think that the rule is pretty good the way it is set up. I do believe that teams should start to think outside the box when it comes to encountering traffic jams, meaning that if a robot is sitting there and not moving, and you can't move cause if you back up or the only way you can move will cause you to incur a penalty, then bump the robot to pass. If the robot doesn't move in the 6s grace period, they will get penalized. And if they continue to do this, they will according to G41 get a yellow card or probably penalized more.

just my 2cents

[Justin Montois]

They've made Rule changes after week 1 before. Dave....

[Paul Copioli]

Dave,

I have to disagree with you on this one. It is a rule like any other. The rule was clear from the start. Either don't fully cross the line, or once you cross it, then keep going.
BTW, one of our losses today was due to a partner getting this penalty. If the rule was changed to fully crossing back, then teams would violate that rule too.

-Paul

[Uberbots]

Its not one of the rules thats meant to spoil the fun, its an element of the game designed to make it harder. with this rule in place, the game becomes more challenging.

[Tapoore]

I believe that removing the penalty attached to this rule would be too much of a change in gameplay. Maybe a better amendment would be to make it 5 points? 2 points?

I will admit though, the rule is really quite annoying- we lost a couple of matches due to alliance partners getting penalized.

[waialua359]

I dont like the rule.
thank god our robot base doesnt cross the line while trying to hurdle the ball with our arm.
Along with the 80" rule, it really limits what teams could have done with building their bot and keeping good center of gravity. Its like their arms have to be in front of their base somewhat, trying to balance a huge 10 lb ball, without tipping and/or without the robot base crossing the line. So much "rules" on how to hurdle.
I hate to see penalties affecting the outcome of matches, especially when it may be hard to see across the field and lots of traffic.

I can see shooter/catapult bots having an easy time meeting the rule.

[Vikesrock]

I dont like the rule.
thank god our robot base doesnt cross the line while trying to hurdle the ball with our arm.
Along with the 80" rule, it really limits what teams could have done with building their bot and keeping good center of gravity. Its like their arms have to be in front of their base somewhat, trying to balance a huge 10 lb ball, without tipping and/or without the robot base crossing the line. So much "rules" on how to hurdle.
I hate to see penalties affecting the outcome of matches, especially when it may be hard to see across the field and lots of traffic.

I can see shooter/catapult bots having an easy time meeting the rule.

Yet again, this is not the problem with this rule. If part of your arm is behind the overpass, you are still in that previous quadrant (your home stretch) and can return there without penalty.

The problem is when there is traffic around the lines and robots are trying to maneuver around. If they leave it the way it is I think they need to start calling a lot more impeding penalties to clear out some of those jam ups.

[Jazonk]

I think you are completely right, the penalty is too high.

[MrForbes]

I can see shooter/catapult bots having an easy time meeting the rule.

Yeah, I don't see what the problem is....

[jason_zielke]

I completely agree with you Dave. I think your suggestion is a good solution to the problem.

At the very least, there needs to be some limit to the penalty such as disabiling the robot if they violate this rule more than X number of times in a match.

The excitement of the students and the fans goes down significantly when a team loses because a robot on the alliance causes 50 points in penalties after the others alliance mebers scored 40 points to win the game. It makes qualification matches much more about getting with teams that just don't mess up.

To comment on a few of the other opinions expressed, the idea that you need to "plan" better about crossing the line is really not fair since all the other robots in the quadrant have the ability to backup into you, thus giving you no place to go. Though this could be a good form of defense, I do not think it is the intent of the rule FIRST was hoping to achieve. They need to allow a team to not be trapped in a part of the field because another robot backs up to block them. I would assume that a referre would call this impeding traffic according to the rules, but I have not seen this happen and doubt it would because it is not very obvious in game play.

I hope that after the first week of competition, the game design committee will consider changing this rule to really allow this game to be exciting like they (and all the rest of us) had hoped for.

[TubaMorg]

I totally disagree with the change the rule opinion. As others have pointed out, this rule has been in the books since day 1. I watched a good number of matches and didn't notice any line violations that couldn't be avoided. Now if the robot is hard to control, that is another issue and not the fault of G22. I saw robots going after balls they shouldn't have gone after and cross the line. Even if it's just a little it's a penalty. I saw bad judgment when crossing the line, leaving a robot without a way around a jam without backing up. Logic should tell you that if you cross the line CCW into a trap that requires a CW path to escape, then the original path was not a good choice. Regardless, bumping to pass when there is no path is also an available option, though it may be difficult to wait. If an alliance scores 40 points by breaking the rule 5 times, then how do you know how many points they would have scored by following the rules? Drive CCW and keep driving CCW. It's that simple. Don't chase after balls in the wrong direction, don't drive yourself into bottlenecks. If you choose to flirt with the line and get called for it, then take it as a learning experience and don't do it any more. If you can't control your robot well enough to avoid driving in the wrong direction, then get it fixed.

[Dan Petrovic]

Right. The rule isn't that ridiculous. We've known that rule is there and we know what it means.

It's not really hard to avoid, either. If a trackball is near a line you just previously crossed, leave it alone.

I'm not really saying that it shouldn't be changed. I just wouldn't mind if it stayed as it is or if it went.

[acetech-st]

Our Alliance scored 48 and had 50 points in penalties. We lost a match 0-6.

We're still not clear on where or when the penalties were assessed.

It would be nice to know how this is being called so we could try and prevent it from happening

[Jimmy Cao]

I have mixed feelings about this. I mean, it's not too hard to avoid if you know what you're doing. Nonetheless, having a team get blasted 50 points in a match (I saw this once on the webcast) because someone crossed the line is also excessive. It's not like they gained 50 pts of unfair advantages by doing so...

Especially in autonomous mode, i think it's excessive. It should also be limited to when the team has anything to gain in teleoperated mode.

[Tim Delles]

Hrmmm,

I have to say i find this rule to be fine. Like Paul said it has been known from the beginning. What I don't like though is the penalty for this in Autonomous Mode.

Auto Mode is hard enough for most teams, but now it feels like they are saying that if you try it and you screw up you are going to get a penalty. This does not seem fair, especially to teams who's strong point isn't programming.

Just my 2 cents

[GaryVoshol]

I agree with Paul, the rule has been there from the beginning. And if you change it to say a robot can't fully cross back over the line, then all you've done is move the line.

[Morgan Gillespie]

I agree, this penalty has been known about from the beginning and if you are finding it difficult to follow, then it is something you need to change. Slow down teams. Take it slow, be patient, and if there isn't a way to move without causing a penalty, don't move. Robots will clear out of the way, just wait a second or two. Each 10 point penalty you earn for your alliance destroys the work of 5 laps.

[jgannon]

I can see shooter/catapult bots having an easy time meeting the rule.
Even lap-running bots are running into trouble with this rule, because it's very easy to drive around the lane divider at the far end of the field, hit some congestion, and then swing the corner of your bumper across the line while trying to maneuver out. The reflectivity of the polycarb on the lane divider makes visibility very difficult.

[AdamHeard]

Yes, the rules has been there from the beginning.... but it is seriously putting a damper on gameplay.

His suggestion to change it doesn't really affect the intent of the rule at all, and will allow robots more maneuvering options leading to higher scoring and more exciting matches. Traffic will still flow counterclockwise, and matches will be better.

I doubt the GDC ever wants to design a game where penalties determine matches (I'm not saying they did, don't flame).

[robostangs548]

This game was built around penalties... we will just have to learn to live with it i guess...

[TubaMorg]

And if you change it to say a robot can't fully cross back over the line, then all you've done is move the line.

Here is the most important point of this discussion. If the rule were changed then just as many penalties would be called because teams would knowingly cross back partially but sometimes cross too far.

[Cory]

Here is the most important point of this discussion. If the rule were changed then just as many penalties would be called because teams would knowingly cross back partially but sometimes cross too far.

I doubt it, and your logic is highly circular.

You're saying no matter what teams are going to get penalties, because that's just the way it is. I saw way too many experienced teams who most certainly know better, and certainly were trying not to go "backwards" who got put into a place where they received penalties that could have been avoided under Dave's proposal.

This is not like the tether reversal of 2002. It's not going to trivialize everyone's work and give half the teams an unfair advantage. It's simply going to make gameplay more dynamic and exciting. It will still penalize teams attempting to impede the flow of traffic, and allow teams who get stuck or need to manuever around someone a small amount of leeway.

Yes we knew about the rule from the start. But that doesn't mean that as written it's the best possible solution. Rules that prove to not be practical or effective ought to be changed or removed.

[Vikesrock]

Here is the most important point of this discussion. If the rule were changed then just as many penalties would be called because teams would knowingly cross back partially but sometimes cross too far.

Obviously we have no way of knowing without actually changing the rule, but I disagree with this. In the current state you get a penalty for going even an inch across the line. I will be honest, I have never driven a FIRST robot in a competition and I was only on the drive team for one match (I was sick as a dog and after one practice match decided that being on the drive team was not helping anything), however I have a very strong feeling that for most drivers, seeing exactly where their robot is with respect to that line and making sure the corner of their bumper does not cross it when maneuvering around traffic on the far side of the field with the lane divider in the way is probably very difficult. I think giving them two to three feet of wiggle room would definitely result in less penalties than we are seeing so far.

Also, I wanted to address something that has not yet popped up, but I know will in this thread sooner or later. I know that someone is going to come in and say that it is the first day of week 1 regionals and that drivers will get better as the weeks go by. Well, according to this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63045&highlight=spreadsheet), for 75% of teams, things won't get any better. There drivers will not have any more practice than the drivers we are seeing rack up the penalty points.

[jason_zielke]

Here is the most important point of this discussion. If the rule were changed then just as many penalties would be called because teams would knowingly cross back partially but sometimes cross too far.

I would have to disagree with this point. I have been at Midwest for the last 2 days and have never seen a robot that crossed a line because they were trying to interntionally go backwards. I have seen robots with drivers that have little or no experience and struggle to control the robot crossing a line by 1/2" and then breaking the plane resulting in a penalty. We are putting a ton of pressure on the student drivers if we are expecting them to control a robot in a high stress situation, looking 50 feet down a field through multiple layers of lexan (that is reflecting in all kinds of funny ways) and keep from crossing a line backwards with no tolerance for error. In many cases, they can't even tell if they have crossed the line or not.

I am lucky to have an exceptional drive team, but I am sympathetic to those teams that have inexperienced drive teams.

By not penalizing until to robot completely crosses back across the line, you give the the drivers the length of the robot to recognize their error and correct it. This seems much more in the spirit of the game and of the mission of FIRST than penalizing a tiny error.

[cbale2000]

I will agree that this rule does seem to be a bit harsh in a lot of situations, especially in autonomous mode where there isn't anything you can do about your robot (unless you have a working Robo coach program). Unless there is a team with an auton program that is obviously making an intentional effort to go against traffic, I don't think the penalty should be so severe.

Tele-operated mode is a slightly different story, I can see how the rule needs to be there to prevent teams from going back across, but I don't think it's necessary to give a 10 point penalty just because a team happened to go like an inch across while still trying to go in the correct direction. Now if you have teams trying to go back to grab a ball, thats an obvious penalty, but so long as the intention is there, I don't see how it would cause a problem.


From a drivers point of view, it is very difficult to see your robot on the other side of the field, especially with the number of other robots that can be impeding your vision at the same time.

I guess I would just like to see the rule at least a little less strict.

[Cory]

Now if you have teams trying to go back to grab a ball, thats an obvious penalty, but so long as the intention is there, I don't see how it would cause a problem.

Speaking as a former referee (2005) intent is incredibly hard to judge in the heat of the moment. You can't assume anything about intent, only what your eyes have seen on the field.

You either have to call every infraction, no matter how small, or figure out how to keep teams from continuing to receive penalties, be it a rule change, or simply more practice for teams, etc.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Speaking as one of the many many loophole finders that plague the GDC every single season.... Dave's proposed rule change is going to cause more problems and is probably just going to be exploited by teams that could take advantage of it. I can think of a few teams that would benefit from redoes by whipping out an extension behind their robot so they have about 5 feet of wiggle room.

Honestly, if you really really absolutely hated this rule, just switch it from an instant penalty to a timed penalty like the endzone encroachment last year. You get a fair warning but still have leeway to sneak a bumper across th plane by accident.

[artdutra04]

G22 is the 2008 version of the incredibly high 30-point penalties from Triple Play in 2005.

Yeah, we all hated the rule. Yeah, there were a ton of penalties. But eventually, teams got used to it and drivers learned to drive a lot more carefully while at the opponents end of the playing field.


That being said, I certainly do not like the amount of penalties being seen in this year's game. One way or another, I sure hope it goes down as the season progresses.

[Paul Copioli]

I just don't get it. You have 30+ inches to figure out if the congestion will hurt you. Don't fully cross the line if you think you might have to go backwards. There are too many penalties because people are causing the penalties by not following the rules (in most cases).

This rule was clear from the start, never changed, and gives us 30+" of leway .. I just don't get why people are attacking this rule.

[waialua359]

I havent competed yet, but I think the big deal is that there are a lot of penalties occuring AND its affecting match outcomes.
I cant speak for the drivers that are doing it wondering why they aren't careful enough or the reasons why they "accidentally" do it (lack of sight, etc.) but I think its safe to say that teams dont purposely accumulate penalties and the comment about the lexan glare is a valid one.
I certainly can understand some of the points made by my observations watching regional play from the "side" view all day.:D

[Tom Line]

They are taking an incredibly hard line on this rule, and it needs to be modified.

I watched a number of matches where a robot crossed a line, turned to proceed onwards, and back corner of the bot crossed the line again when they turned. Instant penalty.

When a rule is broken this much, clearly unintentionally, then it needs to be changed. The spirit of the rule is to prevent backwards motion of the robots - against the flow of traffic. The letter of the law is making it very dangerous to do any maneuvering. MANY times it's being broken because bot has to back up to get away from a wall, etc that they've been pushed or bumped into.

I agree with Dave. This rule is deciding way to many matches, and needs to be changed to penalizing a bot that FULLY crosses back over the line. Then all these small unintentional crossing penalties that are having a major impact on the final scores would be mitigated.

[Dave Flowerday]

There are too many penalties because people are causing the penalties by not following the rules (in most cases).

This rule was clear from the start, never changed, and gives us 30+" of leway .. I just don't get why people are attacking this rule.
Paul, what I'm seeing a lot of and the reason I think this needs to be changed is that we're seeing lots of tank-steer robots which cross the line then start to tank-turn which causes one of their corners to back up slightly, creating a shadow about 1" long on the other side of the line and BAM... penalty. The majority of the penalties I'm seeing are not at all intentional and many are coming from younger teams with less experienced drivers.

Incidentally, I think we've only been penalized for this once. I'm not arguing for this change for the benefit of our team, but rather the many other less experienced teams that are getting dinged repeatedly basically just because they have inexperienced drivers and robots that aren't quite as easy to control.

Maybe it's just not being enforced as strictly at your regional as here.

[Jimmy Cao]

Speaking as a former referee (2005) intent is incredibly hard to judge in the heat of the moment. You can't assume anything about intent, only what your eyes have seen on the field.

You either have to call every infraction, no matter how small, or figure out how to keep teams from continuing to receive penalties, be it a rule change, or simply more practice for teams, etc.

That is a very good point. It is hard to judge "intent" when you have 5 other robots and such to watch. Thinking about it more, I do think that drivers will learn (over time) to be more careful and they'll pick up less of these penalties.

However, if someone has an auton that goes awry, I feel that it shouldnt be penaltized UNLESS it hurts another robot.

[AcesPease]

Speaking as a former referee (2005) intent is incredibly hard to judge in the heat of the moment. You can't assume anything about intent, only what your eyes have seen on the field.

You either have to call every infraction, no matter how small, or figure out how to keep teams from continuing to receive penalties, be it a rule change, or simply more practice for teams, etc.

It sounds like the head referees at this weekends events need to meet with the GDC and decide if a change is needed, and if so, be sure it doesn't make the problem worse. I hated the way penalties decided matches in 2005, and I do not want that to rule the game this year. BUT, We all knew the rules before this weekend started, a new rule may be tough on some teams that are already avoiding this penalty.

[joshsmithers]

After reading this thread, this is what I hear:

I don't like this rule. Change it.

What is this? Complaining wiil get you nowhere and I doubt this rule will be changed. Yeah, so there have been really nice matches that could've bee close if it weren't for that 1/16" bit of bumber that broke G22, but that's life. I quote:

This game was built around penalties... we will just have to learn to live with it i guess...

Next to Copioli, this guy makes the most sense. (Thank you.) C'mon, y'all, hate the players, not the game.

[mathking]

I haven't been to any matches, so all I have to go on is videos I have watched online. It does seem like a very large number of penalties are being called. This should at least cause the GDC to take a look at the rule.

I do think that lessening the penalty in autonomous mode would be a good idea. It seems as though this year's game was designed to try to get more teams to try to do autonomous operations. Having a big penalty is just going to discourage the least experienced teams from trying to do much in hybrid mode.

[Billfred]

I just don't get it. You have 30+ inches to figure out if the congestion will hurt you. Don't fully cross the line if you think you might have to go backwards. There are too many penalties because people are causing the penalties by not following the rules (in most cases).

This rule was clear from the start, never changed, and gives us 30+" of leway .. I just don't get why people are attacking this rule.
I honestly think Copioli nailed it. We'll be nailing down drivers on Thursday at Chesapeake, and I'll be training them to make turns with a bit more technique. More specifically, I'll be telling them to get well clear of the lane divider before turning, especially in traffic. Even if getting closer to the field barriers is a bit slower, I do not want us getting these penalties. The more you can be sure about your clearance, the better.

[cbale2000]

Honestly, if you really really absolutely hated this rule, just switch it from an instant penalty to a timed penalty like the endzone encroachment last year. You get a fair warning but still have leeway to sneak a bumper across th plane by accident.

I think I like this solution better than any of the other ones I've seen so far, something that would give you a few seconds to correct your mistake, instead of x amount of inches leeway. It would keep the intention of the rule, without being so strict.

[Bomberofdoom]

I agree. I hope this does not affect too much the 1st week regional teams and hope that the change of the rule (if there will be one) will help make the following regionals become more fair and less tense for the drivers so that we can see the max out of them.

[Mike Schreiber]

I think I like this solution better than any of the other ones I've seen so far, something that would give you a few seconds to correct your mistake, instead of x amount of inches leeway. It would keep the intention of the rule, without being so strict.

I'm not so sure I agree, because this allows teams to go as far back as they want without penalty, with a fast robot this can mean acquiring a ball that would have been lost, which does effect the outcome of the game. I would say that a possible combination of the two might be better. What Dave suggested plus a time:

Once a team has completely passed over the lane divider, they can not go fully past the line or break the lane divider plane for more than 5 seconds, this prevents ball chasing (keeping the rules intent), and gives more maneuvering room.

[KTorak]

I agree the rule has been there all along but from my 3 previous years of driver experience (year #4 this season), it is already hard enough to see across the field and deal with driving when there are robots blocking your view. I can only imagine how hard the poly carb makes this task this year. From our practice at home, it will be very hard not to cross the line that is vertical on the field when trying to get a trackball or avoiding other robots since there is very little room to maneuver in that area of the field. I watched enough of the webcasts to realize that too many matches are being decided by penalties and that something should be done. Matches should not have this many penalties. I really don't agree with assessing points in Hybrid mode since this type of task has already been hard enough from some teams. Maybe change it to "completely entering a new quadrant" or reduce the amount of penalty points assessed/limit the total number of penalty points. Or going to the old pinning count down would be a good way to go about this. You have 5 seconds to return to the right side or something. Even removing the Hybrid penalties would be nice, I can't recall ever being in a match where penalties were given in non teleoperated mode in the past 3 years of my experience.

[Tetraman]

G22 shouldn't be changed. It's a totally reasonable rule.

Take a little time and slow down and make that turn. Don't go after a trackaball you can't, and pull back from a robot jam if you can't see.

No ref likes to give out penalties. That doesn't mean they are going to fix the rules so they don't have to hand them out.

[ALIBI]

It seemed like the more the teams played, the less the rule was being violated. Maybe we can get used to it the way it reads. The heartbreaker is that I did not see anyone get the penalty that was blatantly going full speed with every intention of getting back into the quadrant they just came out of, no one was willingly breaking the rule (OK, we should and did penalize the way off course Hybrid errors and we still should). The intent of the rule was to keep robots going counter clockwise, it did that very well, I just do not think that a couple inches beyond it worth loosing ten points. Most times they only moved back a couple inches due to a traffic jam in front of them with no way around. How many impeading penalties were called and how may times did they not get penalized because another robot was pushing clockwise? The problem comes from the fact that this is the same area the trackballs tend to end up and that is where everyone is making their turns. It seems to get crowded at the ends of the field much faster.

My solution to this would be to make a the stripe the same width as the finish line with the stripe in front of the current line (counter clockwise). Then have a clarification in the rules something along the lines of: A Robot will be considered to be past a Lane Marker or Finish Line when it is physically possible to determine that the robot is completely past the far edge of the Lane Market or Finish Line when traveling in a counter clockwise direction. A Robot will be considered in violation of <R22> when it is physically possible to determine that any part of the robot passes over the far edge of a Lane Marker or Finish Line in a clockwise direction once it has been determined the robot crossed the Lane Market or Finish Line in a counter clockwise direction. Giving them up to 80 inches of robot just seems a little excessive to correct a problem that usually only envoles a couple of inches.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Paul, what I'm seeing a lot of and the reason I think this needs to be changed is that we're seeing lots of tank-steer robots which cross the line then start to tank-turn which causes one of their corners to back up slightly, creating a shadow about 1" long on the other side of the line and BAM... penalty. The majority of the penalties I'm seeing are not at all intentional and many are coming from younger teams with less experienced drivers.

Incidentally, I think we've only been penalized for this once. I'm not arguing for this change for the benefit of our team, but rather the many other less experienced teams that are getting dinged repeatedly basically just because they have inexperienced drivers and robots that aren't quite as easy to control.

Maybe it's just not being enforced as strictly at your regional as here.

I think that the rule should stay just as it is.

It's my opinion that the GDC wanted this to not only be a fast game but a game about control of that speed.

We were at BAE, and the rule there was strictly enforced. We are a lap bot (with Skid steer) getting between 4 and 8 laps per match. In the 16 matches that we played (10 seeding, 6 elimination) we got a grand total of 1 penalty, and that was basically driver error. We are lucky to have an experianced drive team, and as such we were able to avoid alot of the penalties that other teams were gathering.

My suggestion: Do not change the rule ... change the way your drivers are driving. Keep your robot under control.

[jgannon]

To those of you who are saying "duh, just don't run into congestion", I submit to you the following exhibits. Note that when you are standing in the rightmost player station (Red/Blue 3), you cannot see what is going on at the transition into the opponent's home zone. The reflection of the diamond plate on the polycarb makes you feel like you can see straight through to the player station, when really there is a robot hiding back there. I haven't made up my mind on whether the rule needs to be changed, but the situation is not as easy as an armchair coach might think.

(Thanks to Joe Pernick and Jim Zondag for bringing this to my attention.)

[Joe Ross]

and pull back from a robot jam if you can't see.

That's exactly one of the actions that causes these penalties most often. If you've already crossed the line, see a traffic jam, and try to back up, you get a penalty.

[SU 39]

To those of you who are saying "duh, just don't run into congestion", I submit to you the following exhibits. Note that when you are standing in the rightmost player station (Red/Blue 3), you cannot see what is going on at the transition into the opponent's home zone. The reflection of the diamond plate on the polycarb makes you feel like you can see straight through to the player station, when really there is a robot hiding back there. I haven't made up my mind on whether the rule needs to be changed, but the situation is not as easy as an armchair coach might think.

(Thanks to Joe Pernick and Jim Zondag for bringing this to my attention.)
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6379&d=1204417424
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6380&d=1204417432

I don't think there's much more to say other than.... :eek:

[Eugene Fang]

To those of you who are saying "duh, just don't run into congestion", I submit to you the following exhibits. Note that when you are standing in the rightmost player station (Red/Blue 3), you cannot see what is going on at the transition into the opponent's home zone. The reflection of the diamond plate on the polycarb makes you feel like you can see straight through to the player station, when really there is a robot hiding back there. I haven't made up my mind on whether the rule needs to be changed, but the situation is not as easy as an armchair coach might think.

(Thanks to Joe Pernick and Jim Zondag for bringing this to my attention.)


that is a really great point, and the pictures illustrate it very well. I guess a solution would be to make sure the "blind spots" are brightly lit from the other side of the polycarbonate, and hopefully you would be able to see the area a bit better.

[Chaos204]

As the driver this year i have a few comments to make that might add to the discussion. My last match (and an unfortunate number of my other matches) was decided by one ten point penalty, we went from being up by six to down by two. Now, I have not looked at match footage yet so i do not know what the infraction was like on the part of my alliance partner, but i did notice something today. Glare is the worst thing to contend with in this game. I truly feel bad for the teams with lightly colored robots and even worse unpainted aluminum. In some driver stations I can only see the bumpers of my robot because they are dark blue.

I without any exaggeration could not see how many robots were on the other team. I was totally convinced there was only one robot on the other side before hybrid started. I had to look at the screen to realize how many robots there were.

It is very difficult to see white with all the glare and unfortunately the line is white and parallel with the poles of the lane divider making it very difficult to see the line's exact position.

I think after further analyzing what we have seen this weekend most of the infractions were on the side opposite the alliance (with the exception of bots crossing the line while hurdling which i feel is a team's fault in design rather than an oversight by the GDC) We should certainly leave it up to the GDC to decide how to react to these unfortunate circumstances. Hopefully for the game's integrity they will make a small adjustment to cope with these problems whether it be choosing a more contrasting color for the line or decreasing the penalty's severity.

[Betty_Krocker]

yeah i dont like the rule either, or any rule for that matter :D
but even if it was changed... all the week one regions would have to be replayed because it would totally change the outcome...

[jgannon]

My last match (and an unfortunate number of my other matches) was decided by one ten point penalty, we went from being up by six to down by two.
Was the penalty for poor arithmetic skills? :rolleyes:

[ahecht]

I was only a spectator at BAE, but the number of penalties per match seemed excessive. At one point, the announcer even said "not a lot of penalties in this match -- only two". The fact that a low-penalty match had a total of 20 points deducted is probably not what the GDC intended.

Imagine someone watching this game who didn't know FIRST, and seeing 4-5 penalties in many matches. Would they come away with a sense of the gracious professionalism that the teams displayed, or would they come away thinking that FIRST teams like to play dirty, and can't even follow the rules? I think the proposed rule change in post one would greatly improve the game from a spectator's point of view, not to mention from the team's point of view.

[Gary Bonner]

To those of you who are saying "duh, just don't run into congestion", I submit to you the following exhibits. Note that when you are standing in the rightmost player station (Red/Blue 3), you cannot see what is going on at the transition into the opponent's home zone. The reflection of the diamond plate on the polycarb makes you feel like you can see straight through to the player station, when really there is a robot hiding back there. I haven't made up my mind on whether the rule needs to be changed, but the situation is not as easy as an armchair coach might think.

(Thanks to Joe Pernick and Jim Zondag for bringing this to my attention.)

Wow. They don't even look like the same picture. I see a market for custom polarized safety glasses with the plane of polarization rotated 90 degrees from standard sunglasses.

[Chronicle_X]

I have much sympathy for the drivers in this year's competition. Depth perception is a tricky thing, especially when you are trying to focus on an object 50 feet away with many obstructions in your view.
It is very easy to be critical when you have a close up view from the comfort of your living room. Some drivers have said that they have not had a problem, and I'm glad to hear it. Many others, though, have stated that it is almost impossible to follow the rule the way it stands now. I believe the penalties issued today prove that.
I am not a driver, so I will not be critical of the drivers who are having a hard time. I would suggest others do the same...;)

[Kevin Sevcik]

Okay, first to the comment that the timeout will let a team run a ridiculous distance to fetch a ball. First, if you're trying to give a pass to people turning a corner or something, the timeout is going to be very brief. Like a 3 count. I don't think I've seen any teams that can actually chase down and corral a trackball in 3 seconds. I think your proposed solution is just too complicated, really. A short timeout would be simplest.

Second, to jgannon.... Wow. Didn't realize how bad the lighting was. Ummm... anybody recall the legality of polarized safety glasses?:cool:

[Vikesrock]

Okay, first to the comment that the timeout will let a team run a ridiculous distance to fetch a ball. First, if you're trying to give a pass to people turning a corner or something, the timeout is going to be very brief. Like a 3 count. I don't think I've seen any teams that can actually chase down and corral a trackball in 3 seconds. I think your proposed solution is just too complicated, really. A short timeout would be simplest.

Second, to jgannon.... Wow. Didn't realize how bad the lighting was. Ummm... anybody recall the legality of polarized safety glasses?:cool:

Section 3 of the manual outlines the requirements for safety glasses. It requires ANSI spec and no shading with the exception of rose, blue or amber tints. If you can find a decently priced set of polarized glasses in one of those tints that still looks fairly transparent please post it here on CD so the rest of us may enjoy.

[Rupnick]

Im not saying that it is easy but it is not exactly hard to not break the G22 We attended the Midwest regional, I drove every qualifying and elimination match for us and never got one G22 called on us, Actually Team 1675 went scott free of penalties. There where a few on our alliance at times but never on us. There the rules people there not gonna change.

[Eugene Fang]

Section 3 of the manual outlines the requirements for safety glasses. It requires ANSI spec and no shading with the exception of rose, blue or amber tints. If you can find a decently priced set of polarized glasses in one of those tints that still looks fairly transparent please post it here on CD so the rest of us may enjoy.

as Gary pointed, out, the polarizing filters would need to be 90 degrees from normal for the polarization to cancel out the polarization off of the lane divider.. either that, or we could drive with our heads turned to the side...

[Jeremiah Johnson]

I hated watching teams that just crossed the lines, get nudged by opposing teams or teammates chasing a ball and end up shadowing the line and seeing the red/blue flag wave. "-10pts for you!" "why?" "because you weren't in control of the other robots" "no fair!" :ahh: :P

[EricH]

I hated watching teams that just crossed the lines, get nudged by opposing teams or teammates chasing a ball and end up shadowing the line and seeing the red/blue flag wave. "-10pts for you!" "why?" "because you weren't in control of the other robots" "no fair!" :ahh: :P
For any ref that follows this, I ask that they read the rulebook the teams are given. Especially, <G32>, which reads:<G23> Causing PENALTIES - A ROBOT’s action shall not cause an opposing ROBOT to break a rule and thus incur penalties. Any rule violations committed by the affected ROBOT shall be excused, and no penalties will be assigned. For example, an opposing ROBOT may not be pushed into another ROBOT in an attempt to cause a IMPEDING situation and violation of Rule <G40> by the opponent, nor may a TRACKBALL be placed intentionally on an opposing ROBOT for the purpose of causing the opponent to violate Rule <G26>. (emphasis mine)
If the teams are under this understanding, and the refs have a different understanding, then the GDC needs to pick one and tell everyone that this is the right interpretation.

[Qbranch]

Driver/Programmer for 1024 here...

As long as you're paying attention... it's not hard to follow. Personally, I don't think the amount of people getting penalties is much higher than the first week in 2006 where half the robots were on the wrong side of the field at period change...

Ditto on it's an element of the game.

-q

[Jeremiah Johnson]

For any ref that follows this, I ask that they read the rulebook the teams are given. Especially, <G32>, which reads:(emphasis mine)
If the teams are under this understanding, and the refs have a different understanding, then the GDC needs to pick one and tell everyone that this is the right interpretation.

I saw this happen several times, mainly during highly congested areas.

Hypothetical: From a ref's standpoint, if you can't tell whether they were bumped across or drove across, what do you call?

[EricH]

Hypothetical: From a ref's standpoint, if you can't tell whether they were bumped across or drove across, what do you call?I don't know. Either you take the FLL approach (benefit of the doubt) or you go the stickler road (they crossed, therefore penalty).

[Cory]

Driver/Programmer for 1024 here...

As long as you're paying attention... it's not hard to follow. Personally, I don't think the amount of people getting penalties is much higher than the first week in 2006 where half the robots were on the wrong side of the field at period change...

Ditto on it's an element of the game.

-q

There are many times more penalties this year than in 06.

I was a ref in 05 (during week one, no less), and teams were horrible at not committing loading zone violations. I'm convinced that this year we saw more penalty points in week one than in 2005. A lot more.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

There are many times more penalties this year than in 06.

I was a ref in 05 (during week one, no less), and teams were horrible at not committing loading zone violations. I'm convinced that this year we saw more penalty points in week one than in 2005. A lot more.

Agreed, without a doubt even. 2005 was horrible until people started catching on. There was an easy solution that year, this year's is not so simple, I'm afraid.

[Alex Golec]

Dave, I also must disagree. Yes, I am horrified by how many games have penalties called during the match play, and just shocked by how many games have been DECIDED by a penalty.

The flaw is in the game design, and I agree that this quantity of penalties should not have been necessary to enforce the game play.

However, the rule should not be reversed at this point. Paul Copioli said it best: the rule was 100% clear from the start. Hence, it became a design challenge - you must play the game without having to ever double back. Sure, it may put arm bots at a disadvantage, but that's a strategic risk you're willing take in hopes of a greater point reward. There are great arms (and shooters) out there that hurdle without ever getting close to a penalty.

If you want to change that rule now, I want 6 more weeks to redesign so that this can be a fair competition.

-Alex Golec

[johnr]

i was all for leaving the rule the way it was, but after seeing the magic pictures the gdc should change something. either field design or game play. or both.

[ALIBI]

I would not want the rule changed to allow for a robot to double back, nor would I want the rule changed to allow up to 79 1/2 inches of a robot to go back over the lines. Nor would I want to see a timed period when you could go back for any reason. I fail to see what design changes anyone would make if say the line where ten inches wide and you only recieved a penalty if after you completely crossed the in line CCW direction and were penalized when you broke the plane of the far side of the line if for whatever reason you ended up going back over the line (the entire ten inch width) in a CW direction. From the feeds that I watched during week one, it seems as though that a line width solution would have negated most of the penalties for <R22> and would have still given the penalties to those that intentionally traveled CW. A rear corner of your robot going back over the line 2" while you make a turn is simply not penalty worthy nor is it against the intent of <R22>. Nor is going back over the line two inches after to make a bumpt to pass (Not a push to pass) signal on a robot that is impeading traffic.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Section 3 of the manual outlines the requirements for safety glasses. It requires ANSI spec and no shading with the exception of rose, blue or amber tints. If you can find a decently priced set of polarized glasses in one of those tints that still looks fairly transparent please post it here on CD so the rest of us may enjoy.
Well any useful polarizing film/glass is going to look something like a 50% to 65% neutral gray tint. If they're actually doing anything useful, then they have to filter something like 50% of all incoming light, after all. If we can work with the GDC to get around that, however, there's plenty of places (http://www.polarization.com/shop/catalog/index.html) that sell adhesive backed polarizing film, so you shouldn't have any difficulty making your own custom, precisely properly polarized glasses. Perhaps the GDC would permit drivers to wear custom tinted safety glasses during the 2:15 of the matches only.

[johnr]

did the blind spot happen at all the regionals?

[Paul Copioli]

Dave,

The rookie drivers will always be affected by certain rules every year. This one is no exception. The only advice I can give new / inexperienced drivers with skid (or tank) steering: get very clear from the line or turn before your robot completely clears the line.


... not as easy as an armchair coach might think.


O.K. How about from a coach that was behind the glass for every match this weekend? The glare is definitely a factor, but coaches can move anywhere in the box and I suggest you do. This game really allows the drivers to do their thing without a coach for every second of the game. The coaches can move around and make sure the glare is accounted for. The biggest part of the glare is the ball looks like it may be on your side when it is in a completely different quadrant ... pretty freaky. The line crossing takes patience. If you have patience, then the line crossing is not be a factor. Do most of your maneuvers while on the line (not just crossing it) and you get plenty of leeway.


I'm convinced that this year we saw more penalty points in week one than in 2005. A lot more.


No way. We would have to see almost 3 times as many penalties due to the 30 pointer in 2005. I agree that the quantity of penalties was higher, but not the total penalty points.

[ALIBI]

WOW, jgannon's pictures put a total different light on the subject. What would happen if they changed the top two sections of the dividing wall to chain link fencing the same as the robo coaches station or if they where to cheese hole the top two sections of polycarb? Personally I think fencing would be the way to go. And maybe dull up the alliance station wall or paint it a contrasting color. Perhaps, after seeing several wicked hits, the alliance station wall should be protected with a SAFER Barrier. (Non-NASCAR fans will not have a clue what I am talking about)

[Steve Kaneb]

WOW, jgannon's pictures put a total different light on the subject. What would happen if they changed the top two sections of the dividing wall to chain link fencing the same as the robo coaches station or if they where to cheese hole the top two sections of polycarb? Personally I think fencing would be the way to go. And maybe dull up the alliance station wall or paint it a contrasting color. Perhaps, after seeing several wicked hits, the alliance station wall should be protected with a SAFER Barrier. (Non-NASCAR fans will not have a clue what I am talking about)

Then the majority of arm bots would have a ridiculous disadvantage, as there would be many more chances to get a fairly important part of their robot stuck in a fence.

I think that drivers will just have to be more careful. When our driver couldn't see because of glare and robots in his way, he knew where the robot was, so he didn't move until enough of the congestion had dissipated.

[EricH]

What would happen if they changed the top two sections of the dividing wall to chain link fencing the same as the robo coaches station or if they where to cheese hole the top two sections of polycarb? Personally I think fencing would be the way to go. Not possible at this point. The change would need to be made the Wednesday before the event, which would mean sending out the chain link NOW to get there on time, to EACH event. Cheese-holing wouldn't work either...now you've got some opaque sections at the top.

How about we just consider this part of the game challenge and leave it at that?

[Alan Anderson]

I just don't get it. You have 30+ inches to figure out if the congestion will hurt you. Don't fully cross the line if you think you might have to go backwards. There are too many penalties because people are causing the penalties by not following the rules (in most cases).

Hear, hear!

[meaubry]

Rule changes are regularly debated, in fact I'm thinking about making it an annual thread on the website.

I'm impressed by the casual and first hand experiences and opinions that help bring the entire issue to light and in better focus. From the stands and especially from a webcast, nuances behind the penalties are missed. The sightlines, the position of the drivers, the reflections (or lack of) - add to the challenge the drivers face.

It appears that great caution will be needed while driving - limiting "driving with reckless abandon", should reduce the number of penalties. Some of the penalties look like they could have been avoided with a bit more forethought, planning, and a conscience effort. Some of the penalties look like the teams were victims of circumstance - bad decisions, poor planning, and silly mistakes. But, again it could have been because my vantage point was simple via webcast camera. I'm sure it must have looked alot different in person.

I do hope FIRST considers making field improvements to eliminate the blindspot demonstrated in those photos attached by Joe G. - very enlightening.


Mike

[rich vogel]

I believe that the game would be improved if Dave's elegant revision to G22 were implemented. I enjoyed watching the robots compete at MWR, but competitions whose outcomes are often determined by accidental rule violations are sort of, well, uninspiring. If I was particularly interested in the outcome of a match in qualifying I often ended up watching the refs as much as I watched the bots.

Let me outline a specific scenario I saw at MWR: two robots racing to the turn at the end--a slower (call it rookie) bot takes the inside line on the corner, a faster bot on the outside line overtakes the slow bot on the turn and clips the slow bot's corner, spinning the rookie bot. The collisions appeared accidental/incidental but in each instance the rookie bot crossed back over the line while they were getting pointed counter clockwise again and in each instance they were penalized. I'm not sure the turning radii of the offending robots would've permitted them to resume play otherwise. Possibly the refs should've changed the calls on appeal on the basis of G23, if the passing bot initiated the contact (BTW: this might be an effective strategy under the MWR rules interpretation), but possibly the slow team was trying to block the pass, in which case the penalty should stand. The referee's calls seem correct to me according to the rules, but perhaps slightly contrary to the spirit of the competition.


In each instance Dave's revision would have let the rookie bots get pointed back counterclockwise without incurring a penalty.

[burkey_turkey]

If the rule was changed to fully crossing back, then teams would violate that rule too.

Here is the most important point of this discussion. If the rule were changed then just as many penalties would be called because teams would knowingly cross back partially but sometimes cross too far.
Like some other folks, i also disagree with you on this point. Because of the glare basically blocking everything CCW of the line, you don't know that you have crossed the line until you have crossed it. If the "line" were "moved back" then teams would be able to see that they were about to cross the "line" and avoid a penalty (and by "line" i mean the new theoretical plane that the robot could not touch because that would mean it has fully reverse-crossed the original line). It is not about reckless driving it is about human limitations. Unfortunately i think that this would not be the best fix



I think I like this solution better than any of the other ones I've seen so far, something that would give you a few seconds to correct your mistake, instead of x amount of inches leeway. It would keep the intention of the rule, without being so strict.
This is what i think is the best solution. A quick 1 or two seconds so the drive can go "oh my, i see that i have broken the plane, let me go forward or reorient myself quickly so i can avoid a penalty" because, once again, the driver might not be able to see that he has broken the plane until he has broken the plane.

I'm not so sure I agree, because this allows teams to go as far back as they want without penalty, with a fast robot this can mean acquiring a ball that would have been lost, which does effect the outcome of the game. I would say that a possible combination of the two might be better. What Dave suggested plus a time:

Once a team has completely passed over the lane divider, they can not go fully past the line or break the lane divider plane for more than 5 seconds, this prevents ball chasing (keeping the rules intent), and gives more maneuvering room.
Yes, i do like the combination too, but i also want to keep the time at a minimum. Robots should not be given enough time to perform any productive function while stradeling the line other than a quick reorientation so they can merge back into the CCW traffic flow.

just my 2 cents. Does anyone know what kind of input the GDC gets before making decisions? Is this message getting to them, are they reading these threads looking to see how the FIRST community thinks the game could be improoved, or do you need to contact them more directly with formal complaints for them to want to take action?

[dlavery]

Does anyone know what kind of input the GDC gets before making decisions? Is this message getting to them, are they reading these threads looking to see how the FIRST community thinks the game could be improoved, or do you need to contact them more directly with formal complaints for them to want to take action?

If you want to get a message through to the GDC, post it as an official question on the FIRST Q&A system. They will see that. None of the GDC members ever read any of the CD forums, so posting things here would be an inefficient way to communicate with them.*

-dave


* it is part of the blood oath that they take when they sign on as GDC members. The "I will never, ever, ever, read Chief Delphi" clause is right after the "if I divulge anything about how we are going to use tropical fruit in the 2010 game, I will give up my first born" terms, and just before the part about doing the Chicken Dance in exchange for donuts.

[MrForbes]

I think the big concern is whether or not there will be any tropical fruit other than bananas....

[Elgin Clock]

This glare situation (which I'll have to admit is pretty freaky, but makes sense under standard laws of optics) could be gotten around by positioning your robocoach at the far end and having them take over the controls at the end of the field as you do your drive by in any mode (tele-operated or human control period).

Oh wait.. Did I just stumble upon another issue the GDC thought of, and a reason for intentionally allowing the robocoach to be at that opposite end of the field??

On can only amuse himself by thinking so... ;)

[EricH]

This glare situation (which I'll have to admit is pretty freaky, but makes sense under standard laws of optics) could be gotten around by positioning your robocoach at the far end and having them take over the controls at the end of the field as you do your drive by in any mode (tele-operated or human control period).

Oh wait.. Did I just stumble upon another issue the GDC thought of, and a reason for intentionally allowing the robocoach to be at that opposite end of the field??

On can only amuse himself by thinking so... ;)Hey, I saw a robocoach signaling a team using arm motions from the far end in one of the webcasts. Enough said.

[monty1540]

Polarizing film/glass is going to look something like a 50% to 65% neutral gray tint. If they're actually doing anything useful, then they have to filter something like 50% of all incoming light, after all. If we can work with the GDC to get around that, however, there's plenty of places (http://www.polarization.com/shop/catalog/index.html) that sell adhesive backed polarizing film, so you shouldn't have any difficulty making your own custom, precisely properly polarized glasses. Perhaps the GDC would permit drivers to wear custom tinted safety glasses during the 2:15 of the matches only.

After seeing a few teams with their team number or team logo on a vertical panel attached to their OI control board that could be seen through the clear front of the player station, and looking at the above linked source, it occurred to me that a polarized panel could be rigged to the OI board. This type of solution would keep the drivers' safety glasses in compliance with the rules, and still cut the glare. It would have the downside of creating an awkward OI board - what with a ~3'x4' plastic panel attached to it.

In a related solution, what about using suction cups to stick a small-ish polarized panel to the player station window? Anyone know off the top of their head whether this would be legal?

[EricH]

In a related solution, what about using suction cups to stick a small-ish polarized panel to the player station window? Anyone know off the top of their head whether this would be legal?I don't think that would work. For one thing, it's intended to provide a competitive advantage, and as I recall, that's illegal. For another, the OI console is counted as part of the robot in everything except size and weight. One of the robot rules is that it can't grab, grasp, grapple, or otherwise attach to the field elements other than the game objects.

[burkey_turkey]

For another, the OI console is counted as part of the robot in everything except size and weight. One of the robot rules is that it can't grab, grasp, grapple, or otherwise attach to the field elements other than the game objects.

If this is all true, wouldn't using the velcro strips on the OI be grasping the field other than the game pieces :-D Just kidding.

I would like to know what options for different glasses are legal, where you can purchase ansi aprooved rule-following glasses that could help reduce this glare, etc. I'm looking around myself and i will post some links if i find some decent pairs.


EDIT:
http://www.discountsafetygear.com/bawamle.html
Thats the cheapest pair ive come across with some sort of tint or shading. They are ansi aprooved with an amber tint, meeting 3.3.3. Will this do the trick to help lessen the crazy inviso-glare?

http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=33141-429-90959-00000&detail=&lpage=none
those are more expensive, but they are available locally for me. I would love some confirmation that the amber tinting actually helps the glare.

[Gary Bonner]

Polarized glasses are not legal:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9011

[meaubry]

I was wondering about something last night regarding this issue.

If the teams are getting penalized for breaking the plane while simply attempting to turn, how is that in violation of the intent of G22?
I realize that the rule has been in place since day 1, and that everyone should have read and understood it.

If they are simply continuing their turn and the corner of their robot crosses the plane - and they didn't "back up" to do it, I would think that it would simply be considered completing the intended directional motion - a continuation of the turn (not a change in direction). That wouldn't hurt anyone, and it would help eliminate alot of unintended penalties.

If a team has to stop, go "backwards" and crosses the line while doing so - then I would consider that a violation of G22.

Anyways - just a thought.

I doubt that the rule will be changed, but perhaps clarification on the continuation of a turn, would be in order.

Another alternative solution would be to make a safe turning zone at the end lines, such that the taped area is 6 to 8 inches wide - which would allow the turn continuation to be completed without being penalized. Then, use the far edge of the tape as the plane that cannot be broken.

Either way, I can live with the outcome. Just seems like something as simple as that would eliminate alot of the inadvertant and non-backing up penalties being called.

my 2 cents,
Mike

[GaryVoshol]

If a team has to stop, go "backwards" and crosses the line while doing so - then I would consider that a violation of G22.Which way is "backwards" on a robot like 148?

[Vikesrock]

Which way is "backwards" on a robot like 148?

The opposite of the way it is currently driving I would assume.

[JesseK]

I've held my thoughts on this until they were complete, but here's my take on it.

This is one of those things that seems like its intention is good but actually practicing it has many unforseen effects. Another possibility is that the GDC doesn't care about the adverse effects because it's extremely difficult to word it such that it disallows clockwise travel AND allows breaking the plane by a specific amount.

That said, the way this rule is playing out is still terrible. Spectating a match that has 4 penalties that happened in HYBRID mode isn't much fun. At least in football when there's a penalty, it's obvious to both the player(s) that did it and the crowd WHAT the penalty is, WHY it happened, and HOW to avoid it in the future. FIRST is different in many better ways, however when the drivers get penalized for that which they feel like they have VERY LITTLE CONTROL OVER it is the teams and the crowds that get frustrated. There were some great matches in week 1 but then again there were some terrible ones that left teams feeling hung out to dry. While watching the webcasts at one point I felt that teams who simply went with the flow in qualifications and avoided penalties (and adrenaline, i.e. it's boring) did better than those teams that actually tried to engineer & strategically use something hard.

That's not exactly something you want to call the papers about.

[meaubry]

Gary - "Which way is "backwards" on a robot like 148?"
That would be - moving in a clockwise direction on the field right?

Yes - on some teams it would be difficult to apply the term "backwards" to.

But, 148's shape probably helps it avoid continuation turning line violations.

Where as almost all rectangular based machines could potentially get penalized simply by turning part way, then adjusting by turning in a different direction.

It just seems to me that continuation turning line violations, caused by the rear most corners - due to forward directional adjustments - shouldn't be penalties.

Mike

[GaryVoshol]

Gary - "Which way is "backwards" on a robot like 148?"
That would be - moving in a clockwise direction on the field right?

Yes - on some teams it would be difficult to apply the term "backwards" to.

But, 148's shape probably helps it avoid continuation turning line violations.

Where as almost all rectangular based machines could potentially get penalized simply by turning part way, then adjusting by turning in a different direction.

It just seems to me that continuation turning line violations, caused by the rear most corners - due to forward directional adjustments - shouldn't be penalties.

Mike

Mike, I agree that a corner twisting over the line as the robot turned is unfortunate. In the same way that an arm hanging down just a little too far changed a 12-inch lift to a 4-inch.

But when we have problems even defining what "ROBOT" is, I hesitate to try to define a trivial vs. non-trivial breaking of a plane. Give the team the benefit of doubt, certainly - if the ref can't tell if the line was broken or not, there's no penalty. But as they said in the FLL rules, we're not going to define "slight" - that just moves the line.

[Joe Matt]

* it is part of the blood oath that they take when they sign on as GDC members. The "I will never, ever, ever, read Chief Delphi" clause is right after the "if I divulge anything about how we are going to use tropical fruit in the 2010 game, I will give up my first born" terms, and just before the part about doing the Chicken Dance in exchange for donuts.

So... you just defied your own blood oath? Hmmm I see.

As for the rule, what's there not to understand, you cross, you can't recross the other way, tada, the end. Sure it adds a kink into your "MOVE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AROUND THE FIELD TO GET POINTS! QUICK!" 'strategy', but so what? No part of the game is easy, it's designed that way. So quit yer complainin and adjust.

[pakratt1991]

I completely agree with some sort of rule change... breaking the plane is just to easy and most of the time teams don't know that they do it.

I also wanted to point out, as a driver, if I put my controller in station 3, and my robot was in the far quadrant I saw three robots in three different positions. Looking through two pieces of plexyglass made looking at the robot, and trying to aquire the ball (or stay inside the quadrant,) pretty impossible.

[JesseK]

So... you just defied your own blood oath? Hmmm I see.

As for the rule, what's there not to understand, you cross, you can't recross the other way, tada, the end. Sure it adds a kink into your "MOVE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AROUND THE FIELD TO GET POINTS! QUICK!" 'strategy', but so what? No part of the game is easy, it's designed that way. So quit yer complainin and adjust.

We all understand the rule; we simply do not like it. I was watching some archived matches of the St. Louis Regional and saw a left-most bot start in hybrid mode and clip the front pole of the inside wall. The bot stopped dead in its tracks. To fix it, the driver adjusted in teleop, at which point the tail end of the bot re-crossed the line. That bot got 2 penalties for that 1 incident. It's downright ridiculous.

I also saw a bot shoved backwards across a line by an opponent, without penalty at first. The opponent separated, the shoved bot turned a ways to go around, was temporarily in the correct quadrant, turned slightly more, broke the plane with only a corner and BAM red penalty flag goes up from the ref. It makes me glad we have a low gear capable of (theoretically) shoving around 160lbs to "kindly" bump people out of our way. In all honesty, the end result for getting penalized for shoving someone out of your way when you've already made low speed contact is the same as the situation described in the beginning of this paragraph.

The GDC could amend the rule such that the finish lines are the lines where the planes cannot be broken, yet bots cannot fully re-cross the two other quadrant lines. Wording it like this would achieve the apparently desired result of preventing bots from passing a finish line then turning around to place on or block the overpass, yet it would also compromise with the actual drivers who are getting dinged for every little uncontrollable infraction in the turns.

[colin340]

i support this to it's not for safety and it's slowing down reset

[Daniel_LaFleur]

We all understand the rule; we simply do not like it. I was watching some archived matches of the St. Louis Regional and saw a left-most bot start in hybrid mode and clip the front pole of the inside wall. The bot stopped dead in its tracks. To fix it, the driver adjusted in teleop, at which point the tail end of the bot re-crossed the line. That bot got 2 penalties for that 1 incident. It's downright ridiculous.


Why is it rediculous? The robot broke the rules twice ... they should be penalized twice.


I also saw a bot shoved backwards across a line by an opponent, without penalty at first. The opponent separated, the shoved bot turned a ways to go around, was temporarily in the correct quadrant, turned slightly more, broke the plane with only a corner and BAM red penalty flag goes up from the ref.

Being shoved across the line isn't a penalty ... ref got it right.
Crossing the line afterwards is a penalty ... again ref got it right.
Whats the issue?


It makes me glad we have a low gear capable of (theoretically) shoving around 160lbs to "kindly" bump people out of our way. In all honesty, the end result for getting penalized for shoving someone out of your way when you've already made low speed contact is the same as the situation described in the beginning of this paragraph.


Penalized for shoving??? Where is that in the rule book? As long as you push within the rules (and there are rules around pushing) you can do it without penalty.


The GDC could amend the rule such that the finish lines are the lines where the planes cannot be broken, yet bots cannot fully re-cross the two other quadrant lines. Wording it like this would achieve the apparently desired result of preventing bots from passing a finish line then turning around to place on or block the overpass, yet it would also compromise with the actual drivers who are getting dinged for every little uncontrollable infraction in the turns.

Everyone knew these rules. They were there since kickoff. If your team did not plan for how the track was set up and did not plan for how you were going to cross the lines, do not complain when you start racking up penalty points.

Fact is, if you have control of your drivetrain you should not get any penalties from <G22>. The problem is that there are many robots out there where their drivers cannot control their drivetrains because they are either too fast or not responsive enough.

I'll (again) use my team as an example. 16 matches running laps with skid steer and a wide frame ... 1 penalty. Understand the game, your control system and the situation your driver is in and you will do well. Ignore it at your own peril.

[rick.oliver]

Dave,

I have to disagree with you on this one. It is a rule like any other. The rule was clear from the start. Either don't fully cross the line, or once you cross it, then keep going.

-Paul

I agree with Paul. The rule is fine, at Midwest, the referees appeared to enforce it uniformly. Drivers need to adapt their play.

[Alan Anderson]

Drivers need to adapt their play.

Drivers should have played with the rule in mind from the beginning. I think "adapt their play" is an odd way to say "stop breaking the rule."

[Adam Freeman]

Our operator got a penalty for crossing over the line in our first match. He knew he did it, and also knew not to do it any more.

We told him, if you can't make it to the position you want in the next quadrant then don't fully enter into it. We had no penalties for crossing over the line for the rest of the weekend.

As for the glare...our drivers and coaches noticed it on Thursday, adjusted to what was real and what was a reflection and never had an issue during qualifying or eliminating matches.

I think the biggest issue this year is teams not adjusting to the conditions, getting multiple penalties, adversly effecting the scoring, and causing slow display of the final score. If we knew who won or lost at the end of the match, this game would be much more exciting.

[WilkesU]

The issue might not be that your team is well aware of the penalty, the issue is many matches were decided because one team on the alliance had trouble with it and multiple penalties were not at all uncommon. MANY matches were decided by penalties and a clean match was a rare sight.

[LangleyCurtis]

i tottally support a rule change our alliance got screwed over by this rule because one of our bots got pushed back at the end of the macth and we would have won, the rule really does need to be tweaked

[EricH]

i tottally support a rule change our alliance got screwed over by this rule because one of our bots got pushed back at the end of the macth and we would have won, the rule really does need to be tweakedIf it was pushed back, no penalty should have been assessed. I would suspect that there was another penalty involved.

This discussion is pointless at this point. Here's why:
The rule is the rule. It's been this way since Kickoff. Changing it now would result in a lot of teams complaining that they had it hard, the later events have it easy, etc.

It doesn't matter whether or not you like the rule, you still need to play by it.

[Alan Anderson]

i tottally support a rule change our alliance got screwed over by this rule because one of our bots got pushed back at the end of the macth and we would have won, the rule really does need to be tweaked

If your description of the event is accurate, you should not have been penalized.

Causing PENALTIES - A ROBOT’s action shall not cause an opposing ROBOT to break a rule and thus incur penalties. Any rule violations committed by the affected ROBOT shall be excused, and no penalties will be assigned.

To address your concern, the rule does not need to be changed. It merely needs to be enforced correctly.

[David Brinza]

I also agree with Paul (as I almost always do): if teams do not wish to incur a penalty, they should not break the rules.

However, I've observed and heard of some really "ticky-tack" calls regarding rule <G22>. A more important issue involves whether the robot has actually completely crossed the line then broke the plane in the reverse direction:

Crossing or breaking the plane for the lane divider line can be difficult for a referee to unambiguously determine. In San Diego, the start of tele-operated mode was delayed at least twice to allow a referee to go onto the field to assess whether robots had fully crossed the line. If it's that difficult to determine for a stationary robot, how can the call be reliably made for a robot in motion? Given the severity of the penalty, the referee needs to be absolutely certain that the robot has crossed and re-entered the zone before raising the flag. Maybe something like a 6-inch "DMZ" around that line might make sense?

In some sports (soccer, for example), "advantage" is a consideration in calling a penalty. This means that the infraction is only incurred if the offender is gaining an advantage by breaking the rule. I can see this as being something that the FIRST and especially the referees would not want to enact because it introduces a level of subjectivity to calling penalties.

I tell my driver once you've driven most of the way into a zone, you better just keep on going. A ten point penalty is a killer...

[Madwolvez]

Now i know some of you here are for this rule and some are not.

Yet i would have to say this rule didn't bother me till i was driving up our home stretch driving forward as fast as i could then turning on the far divider to set up to drive backwards since our robot seems to go better in reverse go figure. But to the true point to call this rule on us though we didn't go forward or backwards on the line only pivot. now why was this called?

[EricH]

Now i know some of you here are for this rule and some are not.

Yet i would have to say this rule didn't bother me till i was driving up our home stretch driving forward as fast as i could then turning on the far divider to set up to drive backwards since our robot seems to go better in reverse go figure. But to the true point to call this rule on us though we didn't go forward or backwards on the line only pivot. now why was this called?It was called? That ref needs a little manual re-reading. If you weren't fully across, they shouldn't call it.

In the ref's defense, it can be harder to see whether the robot has crossed or not from their perspective--I'd say they have to go by shadow/seeing line/seeing wheels/seeing bottom of frame.

[JesseK]

Everyone knew these rules. They were there since kickoff. If your team did not plan for how the track was set up and did not plan for how you were going to cross the lines, do not complain when you start racking up penalty points.

Fact is, if you have control of your drivetrain you should not get any penalties from <G22>. The problem is that there are many robots out there where their drivers cannot control their drivetrains because they are either too fast or not responsive enough.

I'll (again) use my team as an example. 16 matches running laps with skid steer and a wide frame ... 1 penalty. Understand the game, your control system and the situation your driver is in and you will do well. Ignore it at your own peril.

After experiencing this at VCU when we received 2 penalties in a QF match when we couldn't tell if we'd recrossed the line on the opposite end due to shoving from opponents in traffic...well nevermind, you'll just say we have to deal with it, and we do. In a qual match we also received a penalty for impeding *after* we'd pushed the robot disable button. Refs aren't perfect and niether are drivers. If you'd re-read my post, my point is that we don't like the rule and the quotes you've listed are simple reiterations of that. Planning for the "field layout" has absolutely nothing with how we designed the robot and everything to do with interpretable dynamic gameplay.

Our operator got a penalty for crossing over the line in our first match. He knew he did it, and also knew not to do it any more.

We told him, if you can't make it to the position you want in the next quadrant then don't fully enter into it. We had no penalties for crossing over the line for the rest of the weekend.

As for the glare...our drivers and coaches noticed it on Thursday, adjusted to what was real and what was a reflection and never had an issue during qualifying or eliminating matches.

I think the biggest issue this year is teams not adjusting to the conditions, getting multiple penalties, adversly effecting the scoring, and causing slow display of the final score. If we knew who won or lost at the end of the match, this game would be much more exciting.

There are several valid points/helpful suggestions here. First, not going into the next quadrant without fully knowing you can make it is key. It seems intuitive at first unless you've spent all day overcoming different system problems and just want to capture a ball for your first hurdle. It's easy to lose track of the line then, especially on the opposite end of the field.

Second, I can attest that to the fact that the glare isn't very noticable. It's probably different for different venues, but it wasn't a deal-breaker for us. Traffic on the opposite end of the field is what hurt us the most. The point in the last paragraph should help avoid that though.

Finally, in other sports/games it is very apparent that a penalty has happened the second that it happens. In this year's game, we have to wait for penalties to magically show up at the end. It's very difficult to adjust your driving if you don't know when or where you've made the mistake, and always driving conservatively is just downright boring to the crowd. It's just as frustrating as not being able to fully test hybrid mode coding adjustments without risking penalties in a match.

If there was a way they could at least make the lights on the driver station flash when a team receives a penalty, the driver would know it right away and adjust to it. Maybe that's easy to implement, maybe it's not, but it'd definitely relieve some frustration.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Now i know some of you here are for this rule and some are not.

Yet i would have to say this rule didn't bother me till i was driving up our home stretch driving forward as fast as i could then turning on the far divider to set up to drive backwards since our robot seems to go better in reverse go figure. But to the true point to call this rule on us though we didn't go forward or backwards on the line only pivot. now why was this called?

Because the rule is not whether you go forward or backward over the line ... it's if you break the plane of the line once you've crossed it.

This rule is being strictly enforced this year, My suggestion is to coach your drivers properly and have a strategy for crossing (or not crossing) the lines.

[Madwolvez]

Madwolvez whispers to Daniel "i am the driver if i said i was driving........."


It was called? That ref needs a little manual re-reading. If you weren't fully across, they shouldn't call it.

In the ref's defense, it can be harder to see whether the robot has crossed or not from their perspective--I'd say they have to go by shadow/seeing line/seeing wheels/seeing bottom of frame.

this is true,

[Lil' Lavery]

Finally, in other sports/games it is very apparent that a penalty has happened the second that it happens. In this year's game, we have to wait for penalties to magically show up at the end. It's very difficult to adjust your driving if you don't know when or where you've made the mistake, and always driving conservatively is just downright boring to the crowd. It's just as frustrating as not being able to fully test hybrid mode coding adjustments without risking penalties in a match.

If there was a way they could at least make the lights on the driver station flash when a team receives a penalty, the driver would know it right away and adjust to it. Maybe that's easy to implement, maybe it's not, but it'd definitely relieve some frustration.

For a vast majority of the <G22> penalties called (and some other infractions), one of the four corner refs will wave their colored flags signaling that a robot has broken the plane in the reverse direction. This isn't easy for a driver to see, but it is possible for the coaches to watch the refs and factor in the penalties (in fact, a few different alliances walked onto the field talking about how many penalty points they/their opponents had and how it would factor into the score).

[dlavery]

From this Q&A system answer (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9043):

Rule <G22> will stand as written. The lane marker and finish lines are clearly marked on the Track. It is part of the responsibility of the Robot drivers to ensure that, once they have crossed them, they stay far enough away from the lane marker and finish lines to not risk an infraction of Rule <G22>. Both the Coach and RoboCoach can provide assistance to the drivers to ensure they understand where the Robot is located on the field, and located in relation to the Lane Markers and Finish Lines.

That seems pretty definitive.

-dave

[Snake Doctor]

Just one re-crossing penalty can negate five laps around the course, or more than one hurdle and robot crossing, or almost negate the bonus for having your ball on the rack at the end. One penality by each team can erase the alliance's whole score is some matches. At the Arizona regional, one team's robot did a spin on the end line near their starting position and got 120 points in penatlies in hybrid mode. Penalties decide way to many matches. At the end of the game, you have no idea who's won until the penalties are accessed. Is the rule meant to keep the game flowing or to make the game harder?

[Paul Copioli]

Yes, it makes FIRST look definitely inflexible, immature, and forever unable to accomplish their own goal of truly popularizing engineering and technology through robot competitions. I guess they are remaining "steadfast" like Bush.

The CD community is divided 50/50 at best on this issue. The rule as written was clear and no one is arguing that fact. How can you claim FIRST is inflexible and immature if the rule is fine for 1/2 but not fine for the other 1/2?

The rule is the rule, so let's do our part to make sure our alliance partners don't break the rule. If every third team does this, then there will be no penalties for G22 the rest of the year and the general public will enjoy the game without having to worry about G22 penalties. We, the teams, are FIRST. We make FIRST what it is so how we react to this rule will define the rest of the season.

[TubaMorg]

Yes, it makes FIRST look definitely inflexible, immature, and forever unable to accomplish their own goal of truly popularizing engineering and technology through robot competitions. I guess they are remaining "steadfast" like Bush.

:yikes: This might be held up as an example of thinking before you post, lol.

[dlavery]

Yes, it makes FIRST look definitely inflexible, immature, and forever unable to accomplish their own goal of truly popularizing engineering and technology through robot competitions. I guess they are remaining "steadfast" like Bush.
The rule is the rule, so let's do our part to make sure our alliance partners don't break the rule. If every third team does this, then there will be no penalties for G22 the rest of the year and the general public will enjoy the game without having to worry about G22 penalties. We, the teams, are FIRST. We make FIRST what it is so how we react to this rule will define the rest of the season.
Having these two posts juxtaposed in this way forces a brief tangental discussion. I have rarely seen a better example of the "wrong" and "right" way to respond to a thread.

Throughout all my years working with the FIRST program, I have never known the folks in Manchester to turn a deaf ear to constructive, well reasoned, thoughtful criticism that is offered in a manner that is obviously intended to help improve the program. They may not always agree with what they hear, and they may not always respond with a change that satisfies everyone. But when the criticism is offered in an honest and constructive manner, they do listen.

Paul's post offers an excellent example of stating an opinion in which not everyone may share, but doing it in a manner that is constructive, polite, non-confrontational, and - dare I say it - both gracious and professional. We would all do well to learn from this example (sometimes Paul makes it easy to understand why he is a WFA).

Conversely, firing off a blast full of invective-filled tripe that offers no concrete suggestions or recommendations for improvement, but is merely an expression of bile does nothing to advance either the point of view of the author or the discussion overall. A message that is mean-spirited and demeaning helps no one.

Healthy disagreement and constructive criticism are always fine, particularly when accompanied by alternative solutions. But nasty carping without constructive input is unnecessary and counter-productive. Those that don't understand the difference might want to read through this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=65668).

Thank you, Paul, for reminding us how to communicate as a professional should.

-dave