String Theory: <G22> at the Championships [Archive]

Ashburn

12-04-2008, 19:16

This is a suggestion for those attending championships who are concerned with violating rule <G22>, also known as “breaking the plane.” Though I cannot be sure that this suggestion will work in practice, it is very easily implemented and I thought I ought to submit my string theory :) for those who might want to try it.

The idea:
Attach a length of brightly colored string (EDIT: or nylon rope) to the bottom of your robot, near the back end (if your robot has a rear). The string should be coiled and laid under the robot within the appropriate dimensions prior to each match. The length of the string will vary from team to team because the robot, with the string fully extended, will need to adhere to the 80” rule. I imagine that a 1-to-2-foot length of string will probably be sufficient to achieve the goal.

The result:
At the beginning of the match, as soon as the robot moves forward from the starting position, the coiled string will uncoil and trail behind the robot. The length of the string and where it is attached to the bottom of the robot will determine how far behind the robot the end of the string lags behind while the robot travels forward. When the robot stops moving forward, so will the string. Most importantly, however, when the robot backs up, the tail end of the string will remain in place. The string thusly provides a buffer zone for backing up and turning when the robot is in the vicinity of a lane marker or finish line and, ideally, prevents many of the <G22> violations that are most likely to occur during the heat of competition.

The positives:
+ Once completely over a line, the string itself will not break the plane of a lane marker or finish line because it is not rigid, but slack.
+ The main structure of the robot will have a buffer zone in which to maneuver even after crossing a line, because the string (which counts as part of the robot) will not yet have fully crossed over the line.

The negatives:
- A robot will have to travel farther in order for the trailing string to completely cross a line and for the robot to receive points for doing so.

Attached is a series of slides roughly illustrating the concept. If you have any comments, suggestions, or additions to the positives or negatives, feel free. I simply wanted to put this out there. Good luck to all teams!

Vikesrock

12-04-2008, 19:18

Seems to me like it could be a huge entanglement hazard with both mechanisms and wheels of other robots

Josh Goodman

12-04-2008, 19:23

Quite true....but I think he may be on to something.

Uberbots

12-04-2008, 19:28

Well, considering our robot extends to 79.5" in the worst case... i dont think we will be doing this )=

its a good idea though, but i don't like the entanglement issues.

Corey Oostveen

12-04-2008, 19:43

I like the concept of this! Very good idea. Like others have mentioned entanglement could be an issue.

Great idea keep on thinking!

Alex Golec

12-04-2008, 19:47

Hmm... this seems similar to the zip-ties used in 2005 in order for the robot to be in contact with the loading zone plate, because clearly straddling the plate was not enough. Three years, and we're still improvising to make up for a lack of common sense in the rules. However, this is tangent to the topic.

The string could be an entanglement hazard with other robot's wheels and be a nuisance overall. Great creativity though!

-Alex

IKE

12-04-2008, 19:49

This reminds me of the extending tape measures of zone zeal a few years back. Overall I like it. It will be tough to make sure people don't step on your tale, but I really think you are on to something. Very clever...

Daniel_LaFleur

12-04-2008, 19:59

I like the idea, although you'd have to make sure you don't get 'hooked' on to the center divider while going around the end lines.

KTorak

12-04-2008, 20:03

GaryVoshol

12-04-2008, 20:09

Well, considering our robot extends to 79.5" in the worst case... i dont think we will be doing this I think that would be an issue with many robots.

wingnut1705

12-04-2008, 20:11

I had thought about this during the Detroit Regional, but our team didn't have the extra space so I didn't bring it up. Entanglement would be a problem, but out of the box ideas can be a great way to solve a problem. This idea should be tried at Atlanta.

David Brinza

12-04-2008, 20:36

Somehow this seems inconsistent with my pet peeve of seeing students walk around with their shoelaces untied. I tend to freak out, imagining that they're going to trip, most likely while carrying the robot.

Qbranch

12-04-2008, 20:44

Well, considering our robot extends to 79.5" in the worst case... i dont think we will be doing this )=

its a good idea though, but i don't like the entanglement issues.

Same here, Uberbots, Same here...

Our robot looks like it's about as long as a semi when it has the ball held out front (it fits 80" requirement, but only just)... I wouldn't want to push it with a string.

The best anti-G22-solution you ask? Don't back over lines. :]

-q

Valley Raider

12-04-2008, 20:47

Seems to me like it could be a huge entanglement hazard with both mechanisms and wheels of other robots

I don't see this as a problem. Look the string is just going to be laying on the ground there is no way for you to force it into the wheels of another Robot. The only way it's going to become entangled is if an opposing bot drives over it. In this case they are the ones who started the contact and thus they can't force you to take a penalty.

Its like this your Robot is sitting on the field and another Robot runs into you and breaks because of an entanglement, but then latter you start driving again. You are in no way responsible for the contact and thus can't get a penalty.

I would suggest using something thicker like Rope that has a smooth surface so it doesn't get caught on the walls (that's your biggest problem). Wish we could try this but were not going to Nationals.

Daniel_LaFleur

12-04-2008, 20:51

Hmmm ... I was just thinking ...

Since the string would be lying on the ground, if it contacted another robots wheels could you be hit with an outside the bumperzone contact penalty?

JesseK

12-04-2008, 20:51

Pool noodles that are attached to your bot via 6-8" of string may work and not get entangled. The string would allow the noodle to freely rotate as intended by the original idea.. However, I'm willing to bet that better driving will work much more efficiently in the end.

EricH

12-04-2008, 21:09

I don't see this as a problem. Look the string is just going to be laying on the ground there is no way for you to force it into the wheels of another Robot. The only way it's going to become entangled is if an opposing bot drives over it. In this case they are the ones who started the contact and thus they can't force you to take a penalty. Find someone who was around in 2002. The tethers had a tendency to tangle at least a little when driven over, even the ones with metal reinforcing them.

And as for having another robot drive over it and not get a penalty... Outside the bumper zone contact, plus it probably goes past your bumpers, which makes you responsible. Not quite a non-penalty situation... but you could argue that it was their fault (if it was short enough)... So it would depend on the ref. I'm not exactly thrilled about using something that could make the ref make a difficult call.

LightWaves1636

12-04-2008, 21:32

Rick TYler

12-04-2008, 21:50

Three years, and we're still improvising to make up for a lack of common sense in the rules.

I respectfully disagree. You might not like <G22>, but it is crystal clear and easily enforced. Tying string on your robot is lawyering the game, in my opinion, and the time spent coming up with schemes like this might be more fruitfully spent learning to drive your robots in a way that did not violate <G22>.

XXShadowXX

12-04-2008, 21:50

In my personal experience all string theory or any theory that using string theory as a base is far out in left feild. And is just more complex then anything needs to be (things that are mirco sized on the quantum plane made of super energy vibrating in more then 10^200 ways?!?!?!?!?!)

Also this may not volate the rule but the spirt of the rule which you will be called on too.. or we were *shrugs*

EricH

12-04-2008, 22:13

I like the idea a lot..although if entanglement with just string is an issure, perhaps bike chain...it works just as well...1799 put a length of bike chain on their chassis last year so that their bot would be ground when they drove around..(they had a problem with static electricity building up and than then their bot stalling for no reason.).Make SURE that ALL the grease is off first if you use that. Something about robots not being allowed to lose lubricant or similar things on the field. (It's one of the first rules in the ROBOT section of the manual.)

deshirider430

12-04-2008, 22:24

Same here, Uberbots, Same here...

The best anti-G22-solution you ask? Don't back over lines. :]

-q

word.

jblay

12-04-2008, 22:55

this idea reminds me of the 2002 game when there was some team that a rope that popped out like 10 feet and got them into their home zone for extra points.

The problems are:
entanglement(illegal contact outside the bumper zone)
not having a lot of control of the rope because it is a rope which is not stiff(may cause even more g22s)
it cant be very long because you have to stay within an 80 inch cylinder

Uberbots

12-04-2008, 23:26

You know, its kinda funny how we are talking about entanglement in a topic about string theory

David Brinza

12-04-2008, 23:28

You know, its kinda funny how we are talking about entanglement in a topic about string theory
Quantum Robot Mechanics anyone?

Karthik

12-04-2008, 23:33

I was very excited to see this thread, until I figured out what it was actually about. I was pumped to read about actual string theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory).

LightWaves1636

12-04-2008, 23:38

Make SURE that ALL the grease is off first if you use that. Something about robots not being allowed to lose lubricant or similar things on the field. (It's one of the first rules in the ROBOT section of the manual.)

I believe they do because it wasn't greasy when I touched it, but yeah.

Pavan Dave

12-04-2008, 23:50

I was very excited to see this thread, until I figured out what it was actually about. I was pumped to read about actual string theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory).

... I had a good feeling it wasn't about that string theory. I've read way too many books and seen too many movies on string theory as well as read way too many posts on Chief to know that this wasn't the real deal. Come on Karthik, you should have known better! ...

*Sarcasm Meter*

On another note, I believe this topic needs to officially be asked in a Q&A. This could seriously alter any strategy of the possible Einstein teams and maybe, just maybe, we will have some penalty free matches...

fredliu168

13-04-2008, 00:04

Perhaps to resolve the entanglement issue just have a big metal stick poke out from behind the robot. This stick should be at bumper height and should be retractable.

Cory

13-04-2008, 00:24

I like the idea a lot..although if entanglement with just string is an issure, perhaps bike chain...it works just as well...1799 put a length of bike chain on their chassis last year so that their bot would be ground when they drove around..(they had a problem with static electricity building up and than then their bot stalling for no reason.).

See <R06>. While it mentions "metal being used as a traction device", it's fairly clear the intent is you should not have metal on your robot dragging on the carpet.

Valley Raider

13-04-2008, 00:46

Tying string on your robot is lawyering the game, in my opinion, and the time spent coming up with schemes like this might be more fruitfully spent learning to drive your robots in a way that did not violate <G22>.

With all due respect lawyering the game is exactly what FIRST does, there just not very good at it. Every year they come up with some silly rule that dies need to be their. <G22> is a rule that has decided regionals, and not because of human driving. I have seen matches lost because two robots driving in Hybrid period have run into each-other and cross a line drawing a penalty. I know some will clam that this can be prevented but the fact is this rule is nit-picky.

FIRST makes up roles for their games without thinking about the practicality of them during game play. A great example of this is the 6 foot role that originally existed in the opponents home stretch. They pulled this rule after it became clear that the most teams were not going to be able to get the second trackball down. I say most because my team had a plan with in the rules for getting it down that would have work. This rule didn't need to be removed but it was because it offered nothing to the game.

<G22> is a rule that doesn't nothing to help the game. You already can't play defense for longer then 6 seconds. Tell me what does a team gain from driving backwards, nothing so why does this role need to be in place? Lawyering around the roles is part of the game and if someone can come up with a good way of getting around a pointless rule then good for the its time well spent.

Plus when your Robots in a crate there not much you can do to learn how to drive it better.

jblay

13-04-2008, 00:58

i think the whole point of the role is to keep robots moving in a similar direction and to promote scoring to make it more exciting but in practice it makes the games less fun to watch because they are often decided by penalties.

JaneYoung

13-04-2008, 01:01

It's a little strange to see the word, rule, changed into the word, role, in this discussion - at times skewing everything a bit more.

Qbranch

13-04-2008, 01:06

You know, its kinda funny how we are talking about entanglement in a topic about string theory

And, if you did have strings attached to your robot, a legal entaglement would gain a whole new physical dimension... :rolleyes:

-q

EricH

13-04-2008, 01:11

<G22> is a rule that doesn't nothing to help the game. You already can't play defense for longer then 6 seconds. Tell me what does a team gain from driving backwards, nothing so why does this role need to be in place? Lawyering around the roles is part of the game and if someone can come up with a good way of getting around a pointless rule then good for the its time well spent.

Plus when your Robots in a crate there not much you can do to learn how to drive it better.So you're saying that <G22> helps the game? If that isn't your intent, then pay attention to that double negative.

Now, as to the rule being "pointless" and what teams gain from going backwards, a team can gain a lot from going backwards. Let's see-- the chance to grab another trackball, allowing a second hurdle--uninterrupted defense--I can think of more. The point of the rule is to keep the game moving in a particular direction. If you saw old games, they were all over the place.

Now, your final statement is wrong. You see, you can build a practice robot (or just a practice drivetrain) to practice driving with while the real robot is in the crate on its way to wherever it's going.

BTW, if you think FIRST doesn't think about practicality of their rules, then you need to watch the kickoff again. One of the "Big Three" made the comment that Aidan (the HEAD REF of head refs) was "complaining" a lot about "How are we going to enforce this?"

And the 6-foot rule was added pretty much last-minute, as GDC members have noted here (if you read between the lines of the threads about it). So that's not a good example. (Plus, it was removed almost instantly.)

Protronie

13-04-2008, 01:17

And, if you did have strings attached to your robot, a legal entaglement would gain a whole new physical dimension... :rolleyes:

-q

Legal entanglement :eek: NOT GOOD!

I could see your bot getting stopped by another bot simple parking on your string... also not good.

But along the thinking of a G22 work around...

Instead of a string trailing from behind, what about some sort of pipe or pole extending out over the pane. Something that you could extend and retract at will? :yikes:

vivek16

13-04-2008, 01:23

Legal entanglement :eek: NOT GOOD!

I could see your bot getting stopped by another bot simple parking on your string... also not good.

But along the thinking of a G22 work around...

Instead of a string trailing from behind, what about some sort of pipe or pole extending out over the pane. Something that you could extend and retract at will? :yikes:

You mean kinda like a piston? :D

-Vivek

dlavery

13-04-2008, 01:32

With all due respect lawyering the game is exactly what FIRST does, there just not very good at it. Every year they come up with some silly rule that dies need to be their.
...
I know some will clam that this can be prevented but the fact is this rule is nit-picky.
...
FIRST makes up roles for their games without thinking about the practicality of them during game play.
...
They pulled this rule after it became clear that the most teams were not going to be able to get the second trackball down.
...
This rule didn't need to be removed but it was because it offered nothing to the game.
...
<G22> is a rule that doesn't nothing to help the game.
....
Lawyering around the roles is part of the game and if someone can come up with a good way of getting around a pointless rule then good for the its time well spent.
Oh, please, would you consider offering even a scintilla of factual evidence to support even one of these rather astounding statements? As Thomas Paine pointed out, outrageous claims require outrageous proof. In particular, I eagerly await your well-reasoned, justified rationale for the statement "FIRST makes up roles [sic] for their games without thinking about the practicality of them during game play." I can think of several people who would argue this point with you rather vehemently. If you can not back up such statements, you might reconsider whether it is prudent to make such public assertions.

Lest you think that this is just a knee-jerk reaction to an insulting diatribe, there is a rational reason for the above request. As engineers (or engineer wanna-be's) we need to be able to clearly communicate with peers and compatriots, and provide appropriate explanations for assertions that may not be intuitively obvious. If we can not do so, if we instead rely solely on unsupported opinion and not fact, then our effectiveness is severely limited. One may be able to find the optimal solution to a given problem, but if you can not tell someone else WHY it is the optimal answer - with clear, lucid language supported by factual underpinnings - then your utility to an engineering team is minimized. So I would suggest that this may be an opportune time to practice this skill.

-dave

.

Laaba 80

13-04-2008, 01:35

With all due respect lawyering the game is exactly what FIRST does, there just not very good at it. Every year they come up with some silly rule that dies need to be their. <G22> is a rule that has decided regionals, and not because of human driving. I have seen matches lost because two robots driving in Hybrid period have run into each-other and cross a line drawing a penalty. I know some will clam that this can be prevented but the fact is this rule is nit-picky.

FIRST makes up roles for their games without thinking about the practicality of them during game play. A great example of this is the 6 foot role that originally existed in the opponents home stretch. They pulled this rule after it became clear that the most teams were not going to be able to get the second trackball down. I say most because my team had a plan with in the rules for getting it down that would have work. This rule didn't need to be removed but it was because it offered nothing to the game.

<G22> is a rule that doesn't nothing to help the game. You already can't play defense for longer then 6 seconds. Tell me what does a team gain from driving backwards, nothing so why does this role need to be in place? Lawyering around the roles is part of the game and if someone can come up with a good way of getting around a pointless rule then good for the its time well spent.

Plus when your Robots in a crate there not much you can do to learn how to drive it better.

I dont get how you can say this. It has a huge impact on the game, and what makes you think it isnt what the GDC wanted. Just because you dont like a rule they made doesnt mean you should talk about how they dont think when they make the rules. Come on. Do you know how much work they put into making the game and the rules? I cant believe you would even say something like that. Yes they do make the rules complicated but have you ever thought of why they do it that way? On kickoff day they are going to have 10s of thousands of people reading the rules trying to find some advantages. Do you really think they could go through all that without someone finding a problem with the rules?
Please concentrate a little more when you type please, you are missing words in some sentences, and others just plain dont make sence. please keep that in mind for future posts.
Joey

Valley Raider

13-04-2008, 02:20

Oh, please, would you consider offering even a scintilla of factual evidence to support even one of these rather astounding statements? As Thomas Paine pointed out, outrageous claims require outrageous proof. In particular, I eagerly await your well-reasoned, justified rationale for the statement "FIRST makes up roles [sic] for their games without thinking about the practicality of them during game play." I can think of several people who would argue this point with you rather vehemently. If you can not back up such statements, you might reconsider whether it is prudent to make such public assertions.

Lest you think that this is just a knee-jerk reaction to an insulting diatribe, there is a rational reason for the above request. As engineers (or engineer wanna-be's) we need to be able to clearly communicate with peers and compatriots, and provide appropriate explanations for assertions that may not be intuitively obvious. If we can not do so, if we instead rely solely on unsupported opinion and not fact, then our effectiveness is severely limited. One may be able to find the optimal solution to a given problem, but if you can not tell someone else WHY it is the optimal answer - with clear, lucid language supported by factual underpinnings - then your utility to an engineering team is minimized. So I would suggest that this may be an opportune time to practice this skill.

-dave

.

I did not mean this as a slam against the game design team. The point I am trying to make is that the game rules tend to be over complicated. I am very disappointed that Regonals are being decided by Ref rulings on the field and not by Robot performances. SVR was a great example of this. I think the the game design team needs to work more on the game (I don't know what exactly how much time is spent but I would like to see more).

My comments were extreme but this is a problem. My team designed our robot to comply with the six foot alliance home zone rule, we spend two days working on a solution and then the rule changed. I feel major rules changes like this shouldn't happen.

<G22> has caused 1000's of points in penalties. And I have not seen a single team intentionally drive backwards. I think if this rule had been examined more before the game was created this could have been avoided. That was the point I was trying to make.

I agree some of my claims are ridiculous, but it was in part a rant about penalties changing the outcome of the game. All I want is for when the match is over to be able to look up at the score and not think, ok if blue get two penalties then red wins.

What I ask is that after the game is created that people from teams can provide feedback. These can be students who have already graduated but they need to have experienced what is is like to be on the field and know how people on the teams are going to think and play the game. I also feel the referees should have all formally been members of teams. I read the rule book once and often times I find myself knowing more than the referees (I don't want to make is seem like I know everything its just that I have corrected the referees multiple times).

These rules needed to be reviewed before kick off.

Here is my suggestion, when the team review the game and discovers rule <GX> by pose some confusion/excess penalties then create a general post about basically what the rule would accomplish without revealing game clues.

For example a question for <G22> could be.

What do FIRST teams think about a rule restricting movement on the field?
I think that people could have provide helpful information that would have improved <G22. if the was done.

A question for the impeding a hurdler rule could read.

What do FIRST teams think about a rule protecting Robots who are in the process of scoring?

This way team could at least provide a Ya or Na for major game rules. I understand that is some cases this might not work but I think these are two reasonable examples.

Again I don't know everything that goes on when the game is created I just think that more thought needs to go into it, given the dedication to FIRST that so many of us have.

Sorry if I offended you or the rest of the game design team...

dtengineering

13-04-2008, 02:37

Much of my post has been deleted as it was a response to Valley Raider's initial post, which has been somewhat modified by the post above. I would encourage people who intend to post criticism, of the GDC's rules or interpretations of rules, or any other issue for that matter, to stick to the issue and not cast aspersions upon the group or individuals in question. It is okay to disagree... even disagree strongly... but to say "with all due respect" and then show a lack of respect for an individual or group who worked extremely hard at a difficult task is something of a contradiction. If you want to make a point, make it... but stick to the point and offer rationale to support your position.

So.... With all due respect (and believe me... there is a lot of respect due to this group) to the GDC, I haven't agreed with all the rules or decisions this year (technically agreeing with 99.5% of them is not "all"), but have certainly accepted them all and had a great time competing this year and enjoyed the game regardless. Thanks for your hard work this past year... I wish my team was still playing, but I'm already looking forward to next year's game!

Jason

Rick TYler

13-04-2008, 02:42

I am very disappointed that Regonals are being decided by Ref rulings on the field and not by Robot performances.

I've sat through 1-1/2 regionals at the scorekeeper's table. The only people with a better view at an FRC match are the referees. I didn't see a single incident where a referee drove a robot back across a line, drawing a <G22> penalty. As far as I'm concerned, driver mistakes are changing the results of matches, not referee rulings.

EricH

13-04-2008, 02:46

I did not mean this as a slam against the game design team. The point I am trying to make is that the game rules tend to be over complicated. I am very disappointed that Regonals are being decided by Ref rulings on the field and not by Robot performances. SVR was a great example of this. I think the the game design team needs to work more on the game (I don't know what exactly how much time is spent but I would like to see more).

My comments were extreme but this is a problem. My team designed our robot to comply with the six foot alliance home zone rule, we spend two days working on a solution and then the rule changed. I feel major rules changes like this shouldn't happen. The GDC has to make the rules complicated because of people who try to find every possible loophole. Sorry, but that's the way it is. They have their own time constraints--full-time jobs, family, travel distance, that sort of thing. So I don't know how they can spend more time.

You designed to comply with the 6' limit. I think you may want a new design process, starting with game analysis. But that's a discussion for another day.

SVR was a case of a ref not calling a clear rule correctly. That's another (beaten to death) discussion.

<G22> has caused 1000's of points in penalties. And I have not seen a single team intentionally drive backwards. I think if this rule had been examined more before the game was created this could have been avoided. That was the point I was trying to make. I can think of some instances, usually to free a clotheslined robot. I'm sure they examined the rule as much as possible. The problem is that Week 1 (or maybe the preships) is the FIRST time the game is seen played for real. So it's hard to tell what rules will be the penalty-getters. Were you around for 2005's "Kiss of Death" penalty? Slight contact at the wrong place/time, -30 points instantly. That swung a lot of matches. That's how the game was played that year.

I agree some of my claims are ridiculous, but it was in part a rant about penalties changing the outcome of the game. All I want is for when the match is over to be able to look up at the score and not think, ok if blue get two penalties then red wins. Can/do penalties change the outcome of pro sports? I think so. It's just that the penalty is applied DURING the game, not afterwards. Again, that's just the way it's played here.

What I ask is that after the game is created that people from teams can provide feedback. These can be students who have already graduated but they need to have experienced what is is like to be on the field and know how people on the teams are going to think and play the game. I also feel the referees should have all formally been members of teams. I read the rule book once and often times I find myself knowing more than the referees (I don't want to make is seem like I know everything its just that I have corrected the referees multiple times).

These rules needed to be reviewed before kick off.

Here is my suggestion, when the team review the game and discovers rule <GX> by pose some confusion/excess penalties then create a general post about basically what the rule would accomplish without revealing game clues.

For example a question for <G22> could be.

What do FIRST teams think about a rule restricting movement on the field?
I think that people could have provide helpful information that would have improved <G22. if the was done.

A question for the impeding a hurdler rule could read.

What do FIRST teams think about a rule protecting Robots who are in the process of scoring?

This way team could at least provide a Ya or Na for major game rules. I understand that is some cases this might not work but I think these are two reasonable examples. I've been thinking about this myself, but there is a need for STRICT game secrecy. So it would need to be much more complicated/vague. I'm working on something, but I don't think it'll work as I see it right now.

The refs being past members of teams... That's something to be really careful with. 1) There are enough out there, but how many are still involved? 2) Of those, how many know the game thoroughly? 3) Many are now mentors. Do you deprive teams of mentors? 4) The inevitable--how do you deal with bias, should a ref be from a team at the event he/she is reffing? This isn't always a problem, but it can be.

Again I don't know everything that goes on when the game is created I just think that more thought needs to go into it, given the dedication to FIRST that so many of us have. Neither do I know everything that goes into this...but before you say that more thought needs to go into this, try rewriting an old rulebook. Let's say 2005, rewriting the Loading Zone rules/penalties. Oh, and you have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight.

Qbranch

13-04-2008, 02:47

Valley Raider

13-04-2008, 03:05

I've sat through 1-1/2 regionals at the scorekeeper's table. The only people with a better view at an FRC match are the referees. I didn't see a single incident where a referee drove a robot back across a line, drawing a <G22> penalty. As far as I'm concerned, driver mistakes are changing the results of matches, not referee rulings.

I have been on the other-side as a drive for my team inn past years and what I can say is this.

1) I accept 100% of the responsibility for what happens when I'm driving the Robot on the field.
2) It is Very hard sometimes to see the Robot across the field. There are other Robots in your way and Its really hard to tell exactly how much room you have and when you cross the line. As one referee has said (seattle regional) you Robot draws a penalty the second a single atom crosses the line. That can be very hard to tell from 50+ feet away. Then there's the line penalties in Hybrid when no one not even the Robo Coach is diving.

It not the referees fault its part of the game but a ten point penalty for something that is 100% unintentional is never good.

Plus in past year the Referees have been flat out wrong about some calls on the field and have had to correct them.

I think the referees do the best they can, but sometime they just don't know the rules, not every time but sometime (SVR).

sanddrag

13-04-2008, 06:24

Question!

Out of 10 quite large, fast moving, and exciting objects moving all about the field, are the referees really going to notice your string trailing behind when you accidentally swing your arm over and break the plane? Play the game as it was intended people. Keep em movin.

Mike Schroeder

13-04-2008, 07:19

The point I am trying to make is that the game rules tend to be over complicated.

actually its not the GDC that makes these rules "over complicated" its people like you and everyone else that has tried to lawyer the rules in the past, i have seen situation in the past where teams have tried to lawyer their way past rules which have forced the GDC to make very clear rules which i think for the most part they did a good job this year. but then again you can call me old fashioned cause i remember a time when FIRST and the GDC used to make games, not rules and teams used to play these games, not played around them . so if FIRST teams as a whole have a problem maybe they should look to themselves and ask if maybe they aren't the reason for such rules

*throws in $.02*
heh back in my day those $.02 were worth more....

EricVanWyk

13-04-2008, 11:01

JaneYoung

13-04-2008, 11:28

If this trend continues, you can expect the FIRST folk to stop reading Chief Delphi altogether, at which point you will have lost your voice.

This thought could be carried a bit further (not necessarily in reaction to posts in this thread but in reaction to posts in general)..you will have lost your voice and the ears/attention of those whose opinions and knowledge are valued and necessary.

I often think of the aspect of exploration when I think of FIRST. My thinking is - engineers, scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, professors, business minds, inventors, and others - embark on the game design/reveal each year bringing along a boatload of students, professionals, volunteers, sponsors on the voyage. The game is designed to the best of the GDC's abilities and is first seen in action at the first regionals of the competition season. It is there that the rules reveal their strength. Sometimes beforehand and sometimes during the first regionals, the rules are tweaked but, by and large, they endure. They stand. Exploration is a big part of FIRST. If it were not, we would be given the same game year after year after year. If it were not, we would not continue to raise the bar, deepen the impact of FIRST on each other, our communities, and science and technology. Systems have been set up to work with and through in this aspect of FIRST - the Q&A formally, ChiefDelphi informally. How cool is that, that there are systems in place for direct input and direct feedback? The ears of the GDC and their attention to our questions, our enthusiasm, our frustrations - are a very important part of each year of development in the world of FIRST. Using our voices wisely and soundly, enrich the experience and help in this development, keeping exploration alive and well. I like that a lot.

Shadow503

13-04-2008, 11:30

It sounds good in theory, but it might affect hybrid mode performance. I'd recommend using a servo or spare CIM to reel it out at the beginning of tele-op.

Greg Needel

13-04-2008, 11:37

<G22> has caused 1000's of points in penalties. And I have not seen a single team intentionally drive backwards. I think if this rule had been examined more before the game was created this could have been avoided. That was the point I was trying to make.

The problem with your logic is you assume that the rule wasn't analyzed. The "G22 Issue" wasn't even viewed as a problem until the first scrimmages. And it was only through game play that it was, or could be discovered. So the question here is would you want a major rule change after build season? As you stated in your posts one of your biggest complaints is major rule changes.

Now I personally don't think there is any problem with G22. If drivers took that extra second to be careful (or just make sure there is space in front of them before they move forward) there would be no G22 penalties.

As for your statements about referees I will restate what has been said in other threads. Referees are volunteers, and they do make mistakes. It is not that big of a deal most of the time the mistakes get fixed. Even though it sucks to get penalties called (or not called for that matter) you have the same likelihood of getting a good or bad call as everyone else at the event. As someone who has been a ref and a head ref it is extremely difficult to manage everything going on in the game and until teams decide not to break the rules flags will continue to be thrown. I know you are still in High School but when you get a bit older I urge you to go referee and event and see if your opinions of them stay the same.

Along with that last fact, complaining about the process doesn't accomplish anything. What you need to do is graduate high school and then start volunteering at events to get involved in the process, as it is only through action will anything change. If you think the refs are bad then become one, if you don't like the game design process go work for FIRST when you graduate college. Until then rest assured that the GDC and Referees and the rest of FIRST do the best they can in the time they have to provide a quality program which is ultimately the point. I highly doubt you could honestly say that your negative experiences with one or two minor rules changed the long term benefits you got from this program.

JesseK

13-04-2008, 11:42

It sounds good in theory, but it might affect hybrid mode performance. I'd recommend using a servo or spare CIM to reel it out at the beginning of tele-op.

Yea I was just thinking about this. And then, what about the times where it's more momentarily beneficial for you to drive backwards across the line? It seems that it's better in teleop and you'd need more than 1 strung noodle.

jgannon

13-04-2008, 13:42

Out of 10 quite large, fast moving, and exciting objects moving all about the field, are the referees really going to notice your string trailing behind when you accidentally swing your arm over and break the plane?
The referees are pretty good at spotting the corner of your bumper fabric going back over the line, so a string should be no trouble whatsoever.

Ashburn

13-04-2008, 20:22

In the hopes of bringing some clarification regarding the origination and potential consequences of my "string theory," I would like to address a few of the things people have brought up and revise my suggestion somewhat.

Many posts have brought up the issue of potential entanglement with the string and other robots (or even, potentially, one's own robot). This is no doubt a pressing concern. However, I think with proper choice of materials, this worry could be put to rest. I would recommend either of two materials to serve as the "string":
1) High-visibility, sturdy nylon/polyester/etc. rope such as this (https://www.knotandrope.com/catalog.php?r=view&prod_id=257).
2) Jump rope. High-visibility jump rope is easy to find. Both cord and segmented jump rope have potential.

Disclaimer: Only experiment can confirm or deny my suspicion that this sort of rope will pose minimal entanglement hazard.

I believe Mr. LaFleur was the first to bring up the issue of contact outside of the bumper zone. This does not, in and of itself, seem to be a major problem, as <G37> explicitly states that incidental contact will not be penalized. It is certainly the case that any contact with the rope and other robots will be incidental, as the rope is entirely passive.

QBranch was the first to mention that better driving would negate the use for alternative solutions to avoiding <G22> penalties. I could not agree more, but I feel that this is perhaps an oversimplification. This year's game is, as always, an exciting and fast-paced 2-minute adventure designed to challenge our creativity and skill at designing, building, and driving a robot. The challenge of driving cannot be overstated. As per the OPR statistics that can be found here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66388&page=11&highlight=bongle). A number of teams have been on the receiving end of plenty of penalties. This is not meant to disparage anyone, because I have seen just how difficult it is to know where your robot is, relative to the lane-marker, when it is on the opposite side of the field and other robots are in the way. Clearly there are teams who might be seeking to reduce their <G22> infractions, but do not have a practice bot with which to improve their driving skill.

Mr. Tyler said:
Tying string on your robot is lawyering the game, in my opinion, and the time spent coming up with schemes like this might be more fruitfully spent learning to drive your robots in a way that did not violate <G22>.

I respectfully disagree. Firstly, the rationale behind my "string theory" was to provide a back-up system that reduces penalties (good for everyone) and increases driver confidence (they are operating in a very high stress situation, after all). Secondly, the idea simply popped into my head the other day, it was not the result of hours of trying to find a way to weasel around the rules. I think it would be wise for everyone to recognize, however, that the situation on the field is often such that knowing if you have already crossed the lane marker on the opposite side of the field is very difficult. Driver skill is critical, but many teams have not had a great deal of practice driving their robots. Again, this was meant to provide a helpful buffer zone that would allow drivers to focus on more pressing matters than the exact location of their robot's back bumper.

In conclusion, much has been said thus far, but I believe no one has yet demonstrated, outright, the infeasibility of this idea. I hope some team out there tries it and finds it to be useful. Good luck teams!

proegssilb

13-04-2008, 22:40

<off topic>
Remember that blind spot on the opposite side of the field? I think only the drivers have the right to say how much good driving helps or doesn't help. I'll agree with anyone who says good driving helps, but I have to disagree with those who say it is the only thing you need, unless that person happens to be a driver, preferably one who has driven both penalty-free matches and G22-penalty matches.

As for G22 being a good/bad rule, the contents of it were mentioned in the intro video. Based on that, I suspect it is an important rule. I can't think of a better way to deal with it. You can't measure 1% of a robot, you can't say the bot has to go at least 6" over the line before G22 kicks in. The best you can do is make a second "G22 Line" that causes G22 to kick in, but even then, that gets a little tricky, mostly in location and practicality. Fixing G22 is almost worse than letting it be, or so I believe, with my very limited experience as a team member. Either way, I am sure the GDC thought of everything I have, and decided to go with G22 as it is for some reason that they may or may not choose to tell us, although I would be interested in their thought process in regard to that rule.
</off topic>

The string idea shouldn't be necessary, but G22 is the way it is. If your team needs that little bit of extra help, the string might be the way to go. It isn't necessary, based on the West Michigan matches, but I don't see why it should be a problem other than contact outside the bumper zone (that should be addressed by QA)

(My apologies if this isn't the best post ever)

Herodotus

13-04-2008, 23:19

<off topic>
Remember that blind spot on the opposite side of the field? I think only the drivers have the right to say how much good driving helps or doesn't help. I'll agree with anyone who says good driving helps, but I have to disagree with those who say it is the only thing you need, unless that person happens to be a driver, preferably one who has driven both penalty-free matches and G22-penalty matches.

I fit the criteria. I've driven in both kinds of matches, mostly the former, and I have to say even the best driver is going to make mistakes. I didn't keep track, but I believe I have four G22 penalties. Only one was intentional, and that was to try to get our partners unstuck from the overpass. I personally wish the rule was changed so that your entire robot had to pass back over the line to count as a G22, or maybe you had to be over the line for 3 seconds or so for it to count, something like that. But like I said in another post, we play their game, not ours. Ultimately, however we feel about the rules, we still have to follow them.

That said, I think making a mechanical solution to a driver problem is perfectly acceptable. It would be well within the rules, and would simply be using ingenuity to solve a genuine problem. Rules like this can simply be another hurdle(no pun intended) to overcome.

But how is this for a solution? Put a color sensor on the back of your robot. Once it has determined you've passed the line it won't let the robot move backwards until it's moved forward somewhat.

JesseK

14-04-2008, 09:47

Samuel H.

14-04-2008, 10:04

I actually had a similar idea, but instead of a rope, just have a pool noodle hanging off the back. At the beginning of the match it falls down.

Pool noodles would both avoid entanglement concerns, as well as visibility.

Our robot is not going to the Championship, but if we were I would recommend this to our team.

EricH

14-04-2008, 10:43

After hybrid, our robocoach looked fairly bored at VCU. So for Philly, we put him on the other side of the field to watch our blind spot for us. With some creative hand signals and bright gloves, that particular region on the field was no longer "blind". I was the coach behind the drivers and it was my job to not only watch the "big picture" but also the hand signals and communicate them to my drivers. I'd say this worked very well, as we didn't receive a single penalty in Philly. Hence, good driving isn't the only thing you need, yet string theory is just another alternative to the options available that help us cope with <G22>. My team did that after practice matches. The robot wasn't ready, so we sent the drive team out for the first one. Afterwards, we discussed the hole in visibility... and the robocoach broke out the colored tape and a pair of gloves.

We weren't the only team to do this.

XXShadowXX

14-04-2008, 14:24

You people really need to give it up, after Sunday there will be a whole new game.

<G22> was made to keep the game flowing in a certain direction, therefore if you are using this as a excuse to go backwards you are violating the the spirt of the rule which is as bad as violating the rule it self, there is no way around it. Just accept the rules and move on.

These games are designed to be hard not easy, and to drivers, challenging. Rules are not made to be broken, but followed. If there were loopholes would we would not have half the fun.
Likewise everyminute we spend lawyer the rules we loose scouting and planning time that many teams desperatly need.

65_Xero_Huskie

14-04-2008, 14:34

The referees are pretty good at spotting the corner of your bumper fabric going back over the line, so a string should be no trouble whatsoever.

Yea. It SHOULD be no problem.
But there have been times, not gonna specify, when refs have missed giant balls going over 6ft in the air over an overpass 2 times in 5 seconds. So i think the string would be very hard for some to see and people could get penalties for trying this type of thing.

XXShadowXX

14-04-2008, 14:40

EricH

14-04-2008, 14:43

there is no need to insault the refree, there job is very hard and stressful...He's stating something that happened. That's not insulting the refs, it's saying they didn't see it. There's a big difference there. I've seen refs not see things myself in soccer. It happens.

Now if he'd been grousing about it, that would be an insult.

Bongle

14-04-2008, 14:44

<G22> has caused 1000's of points in penalties. And I have not seen a single team intentionally drive backwards. I think if this rule had been examined more before the game was created this could have been avoided. That was the point I was trying to make.
You should think about <G22> a bit more, I think it shows that FIRST put lots of effort into deciding the penalties and their valuations.

Edit: What follows is incorrect. In cases where you're knocking off an opponent's trackball or freeing an alliance partner, the gain is or can be greater than 10 points.

Original:
Nobody will EVER break <G22> intentionally. Ever. Period. There is zero incentive to do so. There is nothing you can accomplish by breaking <G22> intentionally that will actually result in you scoring 10 points (or preventing your opponent from scoring 10 points). Complaining that <G22> only catches people who broke it unintentionally is stating the obvious. Nobody would break <G22> intentionally, doing so would guarantee a net loss in points.

I would argue that this property of <G22> means that FIRST did think very hard about the rules beforehand, and set the penalty score just high enough that nobody would ever bother breaking it on purpose, thus accomplishing their goal of a circular game.

Alan Anderson

14-04-2008, 14:47

You people really need to give it up, after Sunday there will be a whole new game.

The new game doesn't arrive for eight and a half months. Some of us will be playing Overdrive in off-season competitions for the rest of the calendar year.

I think the trailing string idea is a very creative way to give the drivers a little legal slack :) and make them less likely to draw a penalty by accident. I also think it's a crutch, but that doesn't make it any less admirable.

jgannon

14-04-2008, 14:53

Nobody will EVER break <G22> intentionally. Ever. Period. There is zero incentive to do so. There is nothing you can accomplish by breaking <G22> intentionally that will actually result in you scoring 10 points
Not true at all. It has been reported as happening at multiple events, and I saw it in person at Buckeye. Teams have broken <G22> to free their alliance partners from their entanglement with the overpass. Having another robot able to play with you for an additional minute can (and should) net you far more than ten points, and I've seen very smart teams realize this and take the penalty.

seanwitte

14-04-2008, 14:54

I haven't seen anyone take the Wallace approach and solve this with technology. As an example, you could also use retro-reflective IR sensors to look for the lines and keep track of your proximity to them. You can mount them off-vertical to give you the ability to "see" the line from a few inches away. With a little programming magic I can think of a few novel applications:

1) Flash an OI LED when you've completely crossed a line and are still within sensing distance of it. The flashing LED means "don't drive backwards!"
2) Write a dashboard app to bark at the driver when there is a danger of violating the <G22> rule.
3) Have a little stop sign pop up on the robot when you're over the line, then pop down when you've crossed. When you see the sign go down you know not to back up.
4) Prevent the robot from moving if the movement will cause a <G22> penalty

Adding one sensor to each corner of the robot would be sufficient. Assuming you're normally driving around in the forward direction you can derive the state model for the sensors.

Alan Anderson

14-04-2008, 14:56

Nobody will EVER break <G22> intentionally. Ever. Period. There is zero incentive to do so. There is nothing you can accomplish by breaking <G22> intentionally that will actually result in you scoring 10 points (or preventing your opponent from scoring 10 points). Complaining that <G22> only catches people who broke it unintentionally is stating the obvious. Nobody would break <G22> intentionally, doing so would guarantee a net loss in points.

There are occasions where there is an incentive to violate <G22>.

I've seen multiple teams drive backwards on purpose. They do it to try to free an alliance partner that's gotten hung up on the overpass. Risking a ten point penalty is worth it if you make another robot available for scoring points during the rest of the match.

It's also possible to deprive your opponents of twelve points by knocking their trackball backwards off their side of the overpass just before the buzzer. It's a net gain even if you draw a ten point penalty in the process.

Brad Voracek

14-04-2008, 14:59

Nobody will EVER break <G22> intentionally. Ever. Period. There is zero incentive to do so. There is nothing you can accomplish by breaking <G22> intentionally that will actually result in you scoring 10 points (or preventing your opponent from scoring 10 points). Complaining that <G22> only catches people who broke it unintentionally is stating the obvious. Nobody would break <G22> intentionally, doing so would guarantee a net loss in points.

Definitely not true. One match specifically in Los Angeles, I, knowingly got the ten point penalty to knock a trackball off the overpass -backwards-, with there not being enough time to do a full lap. The only way our robot can do this is if it drives over the line a little, sadly. However it gave us a two point swing.. not nearly enough to win us that match (against 330! :yikes: ) But it was two points none the less.

Madison

14-04-2008, 15:04

In Tacoma, our alliance partner was caught on the overpass with their wheels in the air. We knowingly violated <G22> to help get them loose. If we hadn't done that, we'd have lost the match.

GaryVoshol

14-04-2008, 15:11

Yea. It SHOULD be no problem.
But there have been times, not gonna specify, when refs have missed giant balls going over 6ft in the air over an overpass 2 times in 5 seconds. So i think the string would be very hard for some to see and people could get penalties for trying this type of thing.Mat, this is the 2nd time you have mentioned this, the other being here http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=729671#post729671 where you did "specify". If you have conclusive evidence of missed hurdles should have been counted, please show it. Not every time the ball goes above the Overpass is it a hurdle. It could have hit the originating robot on the way down. Or the Trackball might have previously been scored, and had not yet crossed the other finish line, so it was ineligible to score again.

Bongle

14-04-2008, 15:27

Oops, I forgot the endgame and freeing people from the overpass, thanks for the corrections.

Still, for the majority of tele-operated period, there aren't any strong incentives to break it. Robots don't get immobilized by the overpass too often (once every 3-4 games maybe), and the trackball-knocking only happens in the last 20-25 seconds of the match. So when thinking only about points in time when I'm correct, then my statement was right! :) ... :(

-----------
On topic, I'm very conflicted about whether this is lawyering or not. The intent of G22 is to promote circular play. Having a string on your robot, while it is definitely using a loophole in the rules, doesn't break the intent of G22, as you'll still be restricted to circular play. However, using a string comes only as a very to-the-letter interpretation of the rule.

JesseK

14-04-2008, 15:29

Or the Trackball might have previously been scored, and had not yet crossed the other finish line, so it was ineligible to score again.

This is the key to one of the best defensive strategies this year, so I'm more inclined to say this was the case. It's very difficult for the crowd to discern whether or not a trackball is eligible to be scored again.

I'd say the only way a ref would miss the string (or G22 penalty) is if the trackball is coming right for them and they have to move for a second. In all of the 100's of matches I watched this weekend, that happened only a few times. Most every other time you could see the little red or blue flag go up indicating the ref was definitely watching.

Stephen Kowski

14-04-2008, 15:53

I think the trailing string idea is a very creative way to give the drivers a little legal slack :) and make them less likely to draw a penalty by accident.

You'd think so, but to the contrary a team at the palmetto tried this very string idea. These strings were the direct and only cause of many of their penalties. I personally would stick to no strings if I were most teams. Good luck and if you do have string, when you get into traffic at the corners of the field I wouldn't move a whole lot (especially spinning in place).

proegssilb

14-04-2008, 16:46

You'd think so, but to the contrary a team at the palmetto tried this very string idea. These strings were the direct and only cause of many of their penalties. I personally would stick to no strings if I were most teams. Good luck and if you do have string, when you get into traffic at the corners of the field I wouldn't move a whole lot (especially spinning in place).

Do you remember anything else about that team? Or maybe what times they played? I'd like to see what exactly this team was doing when they got the penalty.

65_Xero_Huskie

14-04-2008, 16:48

Mat, this is the 2nd time you have mentioned this, the other being here http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=729671#post729671 where you did "specify". If you have conclusive evidence of missed hurdles should have been counted, please show it. Not every time the ball goes above the Overpass is it a hurdle. It could have hit the originating robot on the way down. Or the Trackball might have previously been scored, and had not yet crossed the other finish line, so it was ineligible to score again.

Well, i have seen another time while watching TBA. But if you want me to i will post the occurance i talked about before.

http://www.adambots.com/index.php?title=Videos

Quarterfinals Match 1.

At the 1:54 mark, 68 hurdles, we recieve no points.
Right after 245 hurdles and Still at 60 points.
We get the 2 penalties which brings us down to 44 (because of the 2 lines crossed)

Im not saying the refs are doing a bad job. Im just stating the fact that there are times when things slip by and a sting would Def. be overlooked alot.

Mike Schroeder

14-04-2008, 20:53

So i was playing basketball today..... i was thinking screw dribbling i mean coordination is tough i have never really been big on it so why should i do it, its a stupid rule.

The other day I was playing football... i was bored so i mixed things up when the QB called for the snap i ran backwards into my teams end zone and it was really far away. I should have gotten 6 points... instead my team mates kicked me off the field.

a couple of weeks ago I was playing baseball, I was up to bat i hit a fastball deep to center.... i ran to third instead of first i though what the hell they are the same distance apart. I got called for an out

a month or so ago I was refereeing FIRST Overdrive. we played a competition without G22 and i got so confused with scoring that i didn't know if bots were coming or going. the scores were totally off. I got home that night and there was a thread on CD with all the people responding in this thread complaining that the isn't a rule preventing teams from throwing off the refs count of robots and also complaining about the idiot referee who didn't know what he was doing throwing off all the scores like that.
Now i feel bad and i will never volunteer at an FRC event again.

Years ago I swam competitively I was swimming the 100m Freestyle and decided to play defense so half way through my second lap i made a left turn.

So moral of my story..

Thank you students of FIRST your tireless efforts of needing something anything to complain about has driven away more VOLUNTEERS than I could ever imagine, made so that if the GDC were as smart as i think they are they would just start releasing the same game every year so you can all just perfect your games instead of playing something new and inventive.

Thank you students of FIRST for killing what FIRST was/is, for making it work. for killing my passion.

Thanks

Herodotus

14-04-2008, 21:10

Mike, I have the utmost respect for all of the volunteers at these competitions, they have an extremely tough job. I also have the utmost respect for the GDC and their intelligence and creativity at giving us a great game year after year(though I had my doubts at the start of this year.) But I think your post is taking things a bit far. Baseball, Football, and American Football have been around for decades, if not centuries in one form or another. They've had many, many, many games and tries to hammer down the rules and to create rules that truly enhance the game.

A FIRST game lasts a year, and then leaves. There is no time for the development of the game that many other sports have had. So I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to believe that there will be some rules, each year, that people just don't like, and that can detract from the game itself. It doesn't kill the game, far from it, but it can certainly detract from it. No one, not even the all mighty GDC, is perfect. They will make "mistakes"(I use that word very loosely in this case, it's mostly a matter of opinion), especially given the very short development time for the game.

I don't see how it is at all disrespectful or improper for people to discuss what they like and dislike about the game. Whats the point of playing a game you don't like? So wouldn't it be in everyone's best interests to discuss this year's game, to voice their opinions, and to discuss what might need to be done to make a game more enjoyable?

I just have to say, at the end of most matches the thought that runs through my mind is "Well, depending on the penalties, blue/red could take it." I found that a little saddening. I personally haven't had too much of an issue with G22, like I said I've had maybe four or five penalties from it, but if as many people have an issue with it as it seems, maybe there really is a genuine problem(though maybe there isn't.) My point though, is that either way it can't hurt to discuss it.

Now, If I've entirely missed the point of your post, please beat me with a pool noodle until I understand. :)

GaryVoshol

14-04-2008, 21:33

Well, i have seen another time while watching TBA. But if you want me to i will post the occurance i talked about before.

http://www.adambots.com/index.php?title=Videos

Quarterfinals Match 1.

At the 1:54 mark, 68 hurdles, we recieve no points.
Right after 245 hurdles and Still at 60 points.
We get the 2 penalties which brings us down to 44 (because of the 2 lines crossed)You are correct, the video shows two hurdles not being recorded. The quality of the video doesn't show why that might have been.

I would note that 16 points wouldn't have made a difference in that match. That doesn't excuse a referee not scoring, if that's what happened. But it wasn't a disaster like in some other controversial matches.

Mike Schroeder

14-04-2008, 21:51

of course i know everyone isn't perfect i have a scar on my arm to remind me everyday people make mistakes... i get a permanent reminder of some of mine every day. Thats not the point. This is the point with out the story. Stop Complaining. its a CHALLENGE. Now go look up what challenge means... I'll wait.............................................. .............................................

Back?

Cool now a Challenge isn't an easy thing. Read my signature. Look at what Dave Lavery does every day. Remember Apollo 13. We Chose to goto the moon not because its easy but because it is hard. G22 is a game Challenge. what all these posts tell me not just this thread actually i kinda like the rope idea, its cool in a weird way... i like weird and it kind of goes with what i am saying. YOU all chose to play FIRST Overdrive... You survived an amazingly difficult 6 weeks... can i tell you a secret? I didn't survive the 6 weeks this year... come up to me at championships ask me about it if you want i am not ashamed. but the pride everyone should feel about surviving build, is negated in my eyes in the complete and utter loss of composure at a mere rule not only a rule but a rule about a boundary. FIRST is about setting new boundaries. not about running to your computer and blaming your loss on a rule and a boundary. I know what you are thinking right now but Mr. Big Mike sir it wasn't far. well your right and in adversity and dispair there are 2 kinds of people Winners and losers. Winners take their loss respectably go home to play again. Losers sit at their computers and expect me to read how a Referee cost them their Regional win. I have experience in this remember i said i didn't make it 6 weeks and i was defiantly a loser about it for a long time

well i guess i did actually tell a story sorry...

i understand everyones pain. its been a trying year Aidan warned us I was there sitting in the bleachers....

I have been very lucky for the most part through FIRST i have a National Championships and 2 World Finalists under my belt.

I guess what i am trying to say with testing the language filter is this:

Life has its Ups and Downs, you can stay down or push yourself . Push yourself god $@#$@#$@#$@# it PUSH YOURSELF try your hardest win or lose walk out of that arena Saturday a winner not a medal winning winner but a person who put their soul and more of themselves into competing, didn't things go your way but still walked out smiling. make the person with the medal and trophy feel bad they have a medal who cares you have your pride and that is something no person can take from you, not even some screw up referee. there is a challenge.. do you think you can handle it?

Herodotus

14-04-2008, 22:11

I completely agree that you shouldn't blame your losses on the rules. But I don't think most people are doing that. What disheartens me is not when I get these penalties, that happens, but when everyone is collectively getting enough that "Who has more penalties?" has become a MAJOR question to be asked at the end of a match.

If penalties are deciding not a few, not some, but many matches it would seem to me there might be a little bit of a problem with the rules. You can say that it is a challenge, but the challenge should be in playing the game, not in simply trying to keep from getting penalties. And I would say putting that trackball over the overpass is quite a challenge as it is. It is completely unfair for the teams to try to blame loses on a rule, it is still their job to try to follow it and to not get penalties. But we should still be free to discuss the rule itself like the intelligent, civilized human beings we are so we can maybe discover why so many people don't like the rule. It can't hurt to discuss these things.

Comparing this to landing rovers on Mars is a bit excessive. FIRST is still a sport, a game. It needs to be challenging AND fun.(and in my opinion it still is, even with G22.)

I dunno, I guess I'm just trying to say people shouldn't have an issue with simply discussing the rule. Though I agree that some take their complaints quite a bit too far.