Chief Delphi - G40 change?

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - G40 change? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127350)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Van (Post 1352977)

When we used to have to stand behind a line during autonomous, the rule was "stand behind the line" meaning the places where you contacted the floor were behind the line, not that the line defined an invisible plane that you could not cross.

Moreover, every rule I've ever seen involving invisible planes that you can't cross has been terrible (2008 line violations, anyone?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dradel (Post 1352451)

Why is it no one is saying " hey the rule is what the rule is and if I screw up and get hit with a G40 I will own it and learn from it"

As for the 50 point penalty... It needs to sting to get the point across. And for those of you that feel it "isn't fare" fare is what you pay to get on a bus. Life isn't fare accept it and move forward

It's really more a matter of being reasonable and logical rather than fair.

Saying LIFE ISN'T FAIR is frankly pretty silly and irrelevant. Following that logic I guess the judges should start all of your matches assessing your team a fifty point penalty because they want to reinforce your opinion that life isn't fair.

The point of the game component of FRC is to have fun and entertain audiences. When great game play gets shafted due to illogical penalties it ceases to be fun and it also can change the dynamics of the flow of the game.

It's pretty clear that judges backed off in Alamo on Saturday because even falling down out of the zone didn't incur a penalty. So, it would seem that the officials agreed with most of the folks on this thread. Inadvertently stepping across the line when a big ball comes flying at you is hardly the same as hitting inside the frame of a bot with a big claw to cause potential permanent damage. So, logic dictates that they change the rules to make the foul points commensurate with the foul committed or at least change the enforcement of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefro526 (Post 1353191)

but in the case of the driver's station boxes, (specifically the part that wraps around) and the boxes opposite the scoring table, I think we could get away with another 6-12" of depth without hurting things too much.

At larger venues, yep. But at IE, no way. There was barely enough room to move a robot down that side of the field--and then queuing sent 'em during matches near the end--which put 'em into the box a bit.

I believe there is no need for a change. It adds another game mechanic -- how good is your human player at controlling him/herself?. It is also worth to mention that these technical fouls will happen to every team -- at least every team that hasn't trained their HPs. This also adds the game mechanic that the robot should be able to grab the ball coming from the HP, no matter how fast it is coming or which direction it is coming. That will allow the human player to step back and play more peacefully, decreasing the possibility of this foul. I guess the only possible change would be a reduction in the penalty because a technical foul is quite heavy on the points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dradel (Post 1352451)

I have been. We trained our HP under the new rule. Fine, I'll deal with it. I'll also be incredibly irritated if our partners get that penalty.

But enforcing it is inconsistent at best. Invisible planes never work. And FIRST should know this by now and not create rules that rely on them.

And while fare may be what you pay to get on a bus FAIR is what rules in a HS robotics competition should aim to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yash101 (Post 1353905)

I believe there is no need for a change. It adds another game mechanic -- I guess the only possible change would be a reduction in the penalty because a technical foul is quite heavy on the points.

Yash, you just contradicted yourself and proved the point of most of the people on the thread. Once we spend a few minutes thinking about the effects most reasonable people realize that a technical foul for this infraction that is overly subjective is too extreme.

I thought this was about safety? Simply writing off the issue as, "you don't know the rules, too bad" doesn't cut it. All that statement applies to is fouls. If you don't want people to cross the line make it harder to cross. We're basically arguing about how hard it is to move 4 pieces of tape. Don't re-write the book.