Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Off-Season Events (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   IRI Rule Changes (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129203)

Gregor 04-05-2014 12:54

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Add a G14A.

Quote:

G14
Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL
Quote:

Proposed G14A

Forcing the opposing alliance to violate a rule will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

GaryVoshol 04-05-2014 13:27

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor (Post 1382506)
Add a G14A.

For consistency, it would be G14-1 (cf. G26-1).

And I'd change it from "Forcing" to "Causing". But other than that, this is the rule we needed all season. We didn't have an effective "but he made me do it" rule.

Optional: Since you were supposed to design your robot so it couldn't deliberately or inadvertently possess an opponent's ball, G12 might be exempt from G14-1.

AdamHeard 04-05-2014 14:03

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 1382518)
Optional: Since you were supposed to design your robot so it couldn't deliberately or inadvertently possess an opponent's ball, G12 might be exempt from G14-1.

Literally impossible if you also wanted to posses your own ball.

Meredith Novak 04-05-2014 15:31

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TOTCoach (Post 1382164)

Also, human inbounding to opponent's robot should not be a foul for the robot.

This. :(

Siri 04-05-2014 18:51

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Meredith Novak (Post 1382545)
This. :(

Yes--this would fall under a 'no call' rule (the proposed G14-1). It's utterly ridiculous that this was omitted this year. I didn't expect it to change until IRI (at least not after stop build), but I really was pushing for it. I hated calling G12s and G21s like that, not to mention an almost-G12 in autonomous on a missed opponent shot.

Also, I still don't understand offensive G12ds when I'm not 'attempting to shield my ball' (from whom?)...but IRI can easily ignore that the same way the GDC has.

IKE 04-05-2014 19:24

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
but if you eject the ball out of the field, you get a foul.

Kevin Leonard 04-05-2014 23:08

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Another thing- this isn't really a rules change, but more of a logistics change:

Can the referee stands be moved?
Currently, where they were at championships, they were completely in the way of human player actions at some points. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to be standing right where the referees were while I was competing at championships. We literally may have lost a match because I had to attempt to complete a play around a referee and really couldn't.
It's obviously not the referee's fault that the stand were located right there, but it was a problem that I hope would be fixed for IRI.

Gregor 04-05-2014 23:24

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard (Post 1382667)
Can the referee stands be moved?
Currently, where they were at championships, they were completely in the way of human player actions at some points. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to be standing right where the referees were while I was competing at championships. We literally may have lost a match because I had to attempt to complete a play around a referee and really couldn't.
It's obviously not the referee's fault that the stand were located right there, but it was a problem that I hope would be fixed for IRI.

That was really annoying at championships. At all the Ontario events we would have the referee tablets right in front of the gate, and would move them into the HP zone during field reset to give access to the gates.

Tartan47 05-05-2014 00:26

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard (Post 1382667)
Can the referee stands be moved?
Currently, where they were at championships, they were completely in the way of human player actions at some points. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to be standing right where the referees were while I was competing at championships. We literally may have lost a match because I had to attempt to complete a play around a referee and really couldn't.
It's obviously not the referee's fault that the stand were located right there, but it was a problem that I hope would be fixed for IRI.

I would also like to suggest this change. I could be wrong but I believe at the 2 regionals we attended the referee stand and referees were right next to, but outside of, the hp box.

On Galileo the referee stations and referees on the seating side were centered on the end line of the hp box. More than a few times refs got hit with truss balls that then careened further out of the field. That seems like a bad situation for both the teams playing and the referee who got hit.

Richie_Richter 06-05-2014 00:27

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Increase catch points to 20 or 30. The way it is now, it's almost always not worth it to attempt a catch. Even if you have a robot that's very good at it. (Ex. our robot.) The point bonus is not worth the risk of having to chase the ball around the field and retake possession. It's much safer to just go to the human player and re inbound.

Also please give some slack to G28. So many of these were called in Archimedes.

Max Boord 06-05-2014 00:53

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard (Post 1382667)
Another thing- this isn't really a rules change, but more of a logistics change:

Can the referee stands be moved?
Currently, where they were at championships, they were completely in the way of human player actions at some points. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to be standing right where the referees were while I was competing at championships. We literally may have lost a match because I had to attempt to complete a play around a referee and really couldn't.
It's obviously not the referee's fault that the stand were located right there, but it was a problem that I hope would be fixed for IRI.

Good idea. I knew form watching the live streams that refs and cameramen had a tenancy to screw up human players and expected it to improve witch it did not. Also if I was bumped while lining up a shot to human player, I would occasionally bomb the ref or the tablet. (they are ball proof as far as I can tell) but moving them out of harms way might be a good idea.

EricH 06-05-2014 01:26

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tartan47 (Post 1382697)
I would also like to suggest this change. I could be wrong but I believe at the 2 regionals we attended the referee stand and referees were right next to, but outside of, the hp box.

On Galileo the referee stations and referees on the seating side were centered on the end line of the hp box. More than a few times refs got hit with truss balls that then careened further out of the field. That seems like a bad situation for both the teams playing and the referee who got hit.

At the first regional I reffed, the ref stands were inside the rails of the HP barrier and couldn't be moved. The refs were either in the box or in the gate area.

At the second one, the stands were much more mobile (AKA outside the HP barrier), so we took to putting 'em--and ourselves--in the gate area during matches.

Thad House 06-05-2014 01:34

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
At 2 districts I went to, the ref stands were on the back corner of the HP safety barrier, and pointing at the gate openings. At the 3rd district I went to, the ref stands were inside the barrier in the safety zone. In the quarter finals, a G21 red card was called because a robot touched it, and the in the finals they were really close to calling another one. The ref stations at minimum need to be outside of the safety barrier.

Peter Matteson 06-05-2014 07:25

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Allow teams to play multiple balls at once with the caveat that they can't get assisits while running multiple balls. This would actually allow for interesting strategy choices on how to play the game.

karomata 06-05-2014 08:46

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson (Post 1383148)
Allow teams to play multiple balls at once with the caveat that they can't get assisits while running multiple balls. This would actually allow for interesting strategy choices on how to play the game.

That would be interesting to see which strategy is more effective.

rees2001 06-05-2014 09:00

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Meredith Novak (Post 1382545)
This. :(

Yup.

evanperryg 12-05-2014 09:58

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV (Post 1380341)
Allow a ball to be taken off a pedestal at any time but penalize an alliance for inbounding the ball early before the assist lights go off.

Really like this. It would take some of the stress off refs and field volunteers, and it would shorten the transition between cycles. The only issue I can think of would be if a human player inbounds a new ball, expecting a robot to score but it misses. I think the extra ball could basically be treated as an auto ball if this occurs.

cgmv123 12-05-2014 10:01

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by evanperryg (Post 1384564)
The only issue I can think of would be if a human player inbounds a new ball, expecting a robot to score but it misses. I think the extra ball could basically be treated as an auto ball if this occurs.

This would be a foul, because the assist lights won't turn off until a ball is actually scored.

MechEng83 12-05-2014 10:18

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
I think having 6 balls in auto might "break" the game and give a disproportionate advantage to multi-ball auto teams; but maybe 4 balls? This introduces an interesting element of making a decision which robot gets an extra ball (if any) without making everyone think they HAVE to have a multi-ball auto.

Also, as a hypothetical, could you imagine 6 balls on each side that all miss? 12 balls on the field would be absolute mayhem.

Shifter 12-05-2014 12:07

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Richie_Richter (Post 1383106)
Increase catch points to 20 or 30. The way it is now, it's almost always not worth it to attempt a catch.

Rather than increase the points for a stand-alone catch, perhaps add a bonus for the "perfect" cycle (three robot possessions + truss + catch + high goal, all with the same ball). Under the original scoring system such a cycle is worth 60 points. Applying a 40-point bonus for each perfect cycle would encourage the excitement of robot catches while providing trailing alliances the potential for a come-from-behind-last-second win.

R2D2DOC 12-05-2014 12:23

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Posted in another thread on the lack of an end game this year, but maybe Chris can get some yellow covers:

The end game should have been like the golden snitch in quidditch (sp?):
(1) Start with a yellow game piece sitting top center of the truss
(2) It may get knocked off during teleop, but cannot be "manipulated" by either team. Could be a penalty if "clearly" manipulated.
(3) At 20 seconds remaining in teleop, the snitch can be manipulated. Get points for passing if desired like regular game pieces. THEN 50 pts if scored high and 20 pts scored low.

OR
(1) Each alliance can introduce thier own snitch at 20 sec remaining.
(2) Passing points apply, scoring points apply
(3) Both snitches are available to both teams


The snitch option could have significantly changed the strategy as the end game approached. Seeing refs and human players occasionally getting whacked by the regular game pieces sure remind me of the bludgers (sp?).

One can dream. . . .

cmrnpizzo14 12-05-2014 12:28

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shifter (Post 1384587)
Rather than increase the points for a stand-alone catch, perhaps add a bonus for the "perfect" cycle (three robot possessions + truss + catch + high goal, all with the same ball). Under the original scoring system such a cycle is worth 60 points. Applying a 40-point bonus for each perfect cycle would encourage the excitement of robot catches while providing trailing alliances the potential for a come-from-behind-last-second win.

Love this one because this year in particular a team that was down coming out of auton. really did not have a huge chance of coming back during teleop. I would love to see teleop. have a larger impact since it is so large of a portion of the game.

Kevin Leonard 13-05-2014 11:09

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shifter (Post 1384587)
Rather than increase the points for a stand-alone catch, perhaps add a bonus for the "perfect" cycle (three robot possessions + truss + catch + high goal, all with the same ball). Under the original scoring system such a cycle is worth 60 points. Applying a 40-point bonus for each perfect cycle would encourage the excitement of robot catches while providing trailing alliances the potential for a come-from-behind-last-second win.

This is an interesting thought. It rewards teams for catching, but it does so in a way that creates a new way to play the game, rather than just a bonus on a normal cycle.

I don't know about a 40-point bonus though. Seems a little too much. Perhaps 20 points extra.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi