IRI Rule Changes
 

Sorry to the IRI organizers for jumping the gun here, but there are a few rule changes for this game that I'd like to get out in the open before I forget about them.

1) If the ball leaves the field of play on the drivers' side of the truss, the ball must be returned to the driver station human player. This includes truss-passes that do not count because they were wide of the pole. (I felt this should have been the rule all year.)

Rationale: there needs to be more risk in the truss passing. As of now, if you're under any defensive pressure you can just shoot the ball wildly out of bounds and the down-field HP will get the ball in about the same amount of time as if you made a perfect truss pass. The game should require some accuracy in the truss game. The current game is like if you were given a 15 yard gain in football for throwing the ball out of bounds under pressure - that's crazy.

2) Allow up to 6 balls for autonomous.

Rationale: There are going to be so many good teams at IRI that I would love to see a lot of teams run multi-ball routines in the same match. It would also add a bit of risk/reward - can you imagine having to chase down 3-4 albatross balls. Yikes.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I like that this will be a good incentive for a goalie bot during auton too. Imagine if people actually figure out how to block a 3 ball auton.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Love it.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

*cough cough* 1114 *cough cough*

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

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.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Asists durring auto! Mabye 2nd posession adds 30 3rd adds 60. With that format 1 auto ball could be worth 110pts. Obviously zone requirements would be ignored. Also, golies can leave there zone durring auto assuming they don't exceed 60 inches

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Good rules!

The truss shot rule mentioned by Chris should be extended little more, 20pt foul if the truss shot goes outside the field but not caught by HP or HP does not even touch the ball without leaving HP zone.

Rationale: So many teams have been randomly shooting over the truss, sometimes putting volunteers/refs/judges in awkward dodging game.

Also the volunteer getting such balls should walk and bring the ball to HP, not run or throw the ball. Shooting randomly should have some consequence.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Both Goals and truss + 10pts during last 30 seconds.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

While I don't think the above suggestion is a bad idea, there is already "somewhat" of a penalty associated with delivering an out-of-bounds ball to the downfield human players... It does make earning the 10 Truss Points a little more disruptive to your cycle as you'd have to backtrack to the defensive half of the field before re-attempting your Truss Shot. I've always just considered this an adequate penalty for missing your first attempt, especially in heavily defensive matches.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Make autonomous actually autonomous.

I mean, the Kinect and webcam driving made for cool interaction during "auton", but they were both just different ways to drive the robot in auton.

Even the hybrid auton of 2008 didn't allow for that much driving in auton.

Don't get me wrong, I love how teams took the Q&A ruling and used it to their advantage, but I feel this will probably be changed in future years (unless it will no longer be a true autonomous period).

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I think the penalty for taking the ball off the pedestal should stay.

I think the penalty for inbounding should only be applied if it is inbounded before the last ball is physically scored (not when scored by the ref).

Rationale: The team has already been penalized for taking a ball off the pedestal. If the ball is inbounded after the last ball has scored, then there really is no harm. It also eliminates the requirement that a team remove the "dead ball" before the next cycle can start.

One other possible change is: When the live ball is scored, the dead ball then becomes a live ball, and the cycle starts from there. Again, the team has already been penalized 100 points (50 for removing from the pedestal, and 50 for inbounding before the last ball is scored) so no team would intentionally do it to save a few seconds.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Inflate balls to a nominal diameter. This can be easily tested by having a square rig that you shove a ball through. If it goes through without getting snagged but still touches all 4 sides, it would be in spec. It just seems like such an easy thing to do that can make the experience better for teams that it baffled me as to why this was not implemented at some point during the season.

Also, change G12:
"The intent of G12 is to prevent an ALLIANCE from inhibiting an opponent’s ability to interact with their BALL, but accommodate accidental and inconsequential actions by way of fewer FOUL points. Actions which are perceived as consequential and extended are distinct violations, as there are scenarios where POSSESSION of an opponent’s BALL could be consequential or extended but not necessarily both."

In QF4-1 on Archimedes, we were assessed a 20 point foul when the red ball inbounded by the red alliance human player landed directly in our robot. I have no doubt this was unintentional, they were clearly trying to inbound to the Killer Bees. We immediately launched the ball directly back to the red human player who caught it, then re-entered it into play at the next possible opportunity (if anything we saved them time and they were better off than if they had just missed and the ball been on the floor). If the intent of G12 is as stated, no action by our team could have changed the fact that we had possessed the ball and the rule is ineffective at preventing an alliance from inhibiting an opponent's ability to interact with their ball in cases where it is the direct result of the opponent's actions. Why should we be penalized for their human player missing an inbound?

I understand why the foul was assessed, but my problem is with the rule as written. I suggest it changes such that actions by the opposing alliance which directly cause your possession of the opponent's ball result in 0 foul points as long as the ball leaves the robot in a timely manner. I would like to see it changed to define an exact amount of time when it goes from being "inconsequential" to "consequential" for cases of accidental possession. Somewhere in the 3-5 seconds range sounds reasonable and it gives the refs a concrete standard to go by.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

For our offseason we've thrown around ideas about extra truss points for getting a ball between two poles in the center of the field, increasing the value of a quick truss to the field.

We've also thrown around the idea of a "safe catching zone" on the white lines where a robot cannot be touched if their partner is trussing. Still working on the details for that one. The rationale is that several teams in our area spent many hours on a catcher, so we want to find a way for the catch to be valuable at our event.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Similar to Paul's autonomous should be autonomous, adjusting the definition of launching for possession. I'm not sure the intent of the rule was to allow a human player to bounce a ball off a robot, causing a mechanism to move in relation to the robot, and count for a possession. Perhaps put a condition that the ball cannot cause the mechanism to move? Props to the teams who recognized the rules allow it, but I think it shouldn't be allowed.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

1. Remove the penalties for humans entering the field, unless the referee determines that their action was dangerous.
2. Remove intrusion into a robot unless damage was caused or it is blatent and repeated.
3. If a ball enters an opposing robot and is immediately ejected, no penalty shoudl be assessed.
4. Double the score for catches.
5. No 'driving' the robot in auto with hybrid systems.
6. Do NOT penalize robots for missing a shot to the human truss player. We need fewer penalties, not more.

These three come as a group:
7. Remove the requirement for a 'lit' pedestal. The human player waits until a ball comes through the top or side goal.
8. Allow 'bounce-in' scores over the truss.
9. Allow 'bounce-in' scores off opposing robots.

That means that in teleop if your ball comes in through a goal, it's been legally scored and you start another cycle.

6 auton balls is a neat idea, but that would change the score to significantly weight it in autonomous's favor. For the couple teams that have a consistent 3 ball (3539, 254) it would be a big benefit. After all, how many matches are you going to have another 2 ball auto with you?

In fact, this would be highlighted in qualification matches. Many robots aren't capable of 2 ball by design, and allowing 6 balls to the teams that can do a consistent 3 ball would break qualifications, giving those teams a consistent and large lead at the beginning of nearly every autonomous.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Get rid of G21 (robot extending outside field) as long as there is no violation of G24 (extending up to 20" beyond frame perimeter).

Get rid of or modify G40 (human player extending into safety zone) provided G41 is not violated (human player may not contact robot or a ball in contact with a robot). I'm not sure if there would be too much liability here.

Have the pedestal light controlled by a person with a switch rather than FMS - that way it will light as soon as a ball is scored.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Increase catch points to 20 points and change fouls to 10 and 30.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I agree. Though if this is done, I would also get rid of hot goals - just make all auto balls hot (or not), since you still can't count on deterministic timing of the goals as of Champs.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

If you decrease tech fouls to 30 points, I'm going to pin the crap out of the opposing ball carrier near the end of a match. No way am I letting them score 40 points with that ball.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Is there not an additional penalty for repeatedly breaking a rule as part of a strategy? I don't remember them having to make a call like that at IRI in the past but I would hate for them to have to.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I should explain the reason behind why I proposed this change in a little more detail.

During the eliminations at MSC, it seemed there was a lot of taking advantage of the "closest HP" rule + the lightning fast ability of the field crew to get the ball to the down-field HP. Many teams were getting the ball in the middle zone and then if any defense whatsoever was encountered, they would fling the ball wildly toward the sideline. The field crew would then throw the ball to the down-field HP, quick inbound, bang-score.

The fling out-of-bounds didn't add any time to the cycle because the ball was always caught by the field crew and given to the down-field HP in less than a second. In fact, I would say it SAVED time because they didn't have to bother lining up and fighting defense (and it was definitely faster than sending the ball over the truss to the field and forcing your partner to track the ball down). Many of the sideline flings crossed the field boundary as far back as the zone division line, but the ball was still given to the down-field HP. The issue I have with it is it seems like teams saw a loophole to avoid defense and speed up the cycle, and decided to take advantage of it. I'd like to close that loophole.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

For starters:
Take G40.
Give it cements shoes.
Dump it in a lake.
Cut tech foul points in half.
Game improves exponentially!

This is why the GDC assigns foul points the way they do. They don't want teams intentionally taking fouls as part of their strategy.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Yeah and no triple balancing in qualifying either, u lucky widebots! Oh, wait, nevermind...sorry - flashbacks :cool:

I felt there were many "phantom" assists credited in the Newton division. Balls bouncing off of robots (often rookies) with no hint of actual possession. Sometimes I swear they never even touched the thing. I'd like to avoid that.

I'd like possession to be achieved by either.....

1. Active capture/release with a mechanism, even for a brief instant.
2. Trapping the ball against a field element or another robot.
3. Obvious herding of the ball in a direction (you travel in the same direction as the ball).

Basketball players are permitted touch passes, are they not? Soccer and hockey players can advance the ball/puck without holding it in their possession for an extended period, right? Why not robots? But all of them make some kind of intentional interaction with the game piece to direct it down an intended path. It's not like their teammates regularly bounce the thing off their skates or backs or domes as part of regular gameplay. The robot must be an active and knowing part of the transfer process.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Absolutely this!! and making sure they only grab 1 at a time.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Or also bang opposing robots during auto mode, the team that does 3 ball auto.:D

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I have two suggestions that would speed up the pace of the game, decrease the burden on referees and their subjective judgement, and eliminate the pain of being allied with a BLT, without fundamentally altering the spirit of the game:

1. Get rid of zones. If all three robots POSSESS a ball during a cycle anywhere on the field, that's three assists.

2. Change the definition of POSSESSION (for an alliance's own ball) to any contact with the ball where a partnering robot isn't also contacting the ball. The definition of POSSESSION of an opponent's ball would remain the same.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

The only thing I want changed is for refs to actually call G11.
BALLS may not be intentionally or repeatedly ejected from gameplay.

Violation: FOUL per instance.


Passing a BALL to a HUMAN PLAYER is within gameplay and not considered a violation of G11.

Teams shouldn't just be able to shoot it way over the HP's head and get away with it.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I agree with both of these. It makes the game easier to ref, yet doesn't completely change the way tlut is played. It also makes it easier to get partners more involved.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I think we simply change the whole game.
We have all played open practice matches with lots of balls at events, it is crazy fun with good robots. Change the game to this format:

1. Get rid of Assists.
2. Get rid of the pedestal light.
3. Each Alliance can have up to 3 balls on the field at a time. Team in-bounders control this. Refs simply enforce. Way easier than watching and controlling a pedestal.
4. Ten points for trussing , ten points for catching, ten points for scoring high.

This would be super simple, super fast, and super cool. Defense would be much reduced because other members of alliance can continue to score during double teams. It would be awesome!

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Did you forget to mention to 10 point bonus for any two-digit team from Michigan that wears yellow, and only has omni wheels on their drive? :p

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

We all haven't. Many events didn't allow this :confused:

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

These are two great ideas I fully support. I always thought the zone requirement just made refereeing and playing harder. The game is so much less confusing if assists are "number of robots who interacted with the ball". And honestly, three assists in one zone is almost as much work as three assists in three zones anyway.

This actually opens up a lot more strategy options. Do you do a double inbound conga line and let one partner truss to hp and score? Do you do the "standard" inbound / truss / score 3 robot cycle? Do you do a "death cycle" where a downfield inbounder and scorer with rear pickup park permanently in front of a goal, ready to feed the ball into the goal from an HP? Lots more viable options this way.

I would also enjoy playing with Zondag's proposed rules. The "second" and "third" ball would need to be marked in some way (think white dots like Overdrive) to ensure no repeat trusses, but I'd have a ball playing that game.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

You could do a lot with human players ricocheting the ball off robots to get assists as well. From the proposed possession rules, it may even be possible to ricochet a ball to get a truss? Or get catch points when a ball is thrown over the truss and ricochets off a partner before hitting the ground?

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

This, please this.

Fun fact about tracking possessions, if a robot gets a ball inbounded a ball in the red zone, drives fully through the white zone and into the blue zone, and deposits the ball into the blue low goal, the referee needs to press FIVE buttons on their tablet.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

If Jim wants to go crazy and change the game completely, I have my own proposal in the complete opposite direction.

There is only one ball on the field ever, and there is a 20 second shot clock. All assist rules remain. If you put the ball on the floor and the other team steals it - it's now their possession. In other words, basically basketball with robots.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I'm not sure - I could see back-to-back-to-back Rube Goldberg (or robot centipede, if you will....) type things where three bots mush together, feed the ball through all three cozied up together, and the last one trusses to HP and/or scores the ball. Kinda hokey. Kinda boring.

Perhaps up to two assists can occur in any zone in a cycle, instead of just one?

Or split the field in half, eliminating the white zone. You'd still mark off neutral colored lines to maintain an autonomous lineup reference. To get three assists, you need at least one assist to take place on each side of the truss per cycle.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

these are pretty funny.

:D

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Probably my favorite suggestion so far.

Speaking as a team with a low goal/assist bot, it would be awful for us.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Maybe adding more ideas and thinking it out would make it even better, but I like this as a starting point.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Would infinite trussing/catching be permitted? Cuz keeping track of which of the three balls on the field were trussed already in their cycle would be....problematic.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Then let's make the low goal worth 10 points as well. Seriously.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I would have loved it if this was the game for the 2014 season, although it probably would have proven to be a lot more difficult for teams that got stuck with less-than-functional robots during quals.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I think it's also time for the truss-hanging endgame we all know FIRST was planning.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I'd do low goal 10 and high goal 15. You need to give some incentive for high goal scoring or it won't be worth the potential miss and loss of time. If its 10 & 10 the high goal would see little use unless its by teams like 33 who have a great running shot down field.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

What if, instead of just three red balls and three blue balls, there was 1 red ball with a square on it, 1 red ball with a circle on it, and 1 red ball with a triangle on it (and same for blue)? That might make it easier for a ref to say, "Okay, I'm tracking the red ball with the triangle," rather than trying to follow a ball identical to two others.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I think some of these are absolutely insane.

Without the zone possession requirement, teams that purposely built their robots so they are able to easily truss from the white zone or the colored zone are penalized.

My suggestions would be:
1) Double the points for a catch- as of right now catching has no place in eliminations matches.
2) Make accidental possession of an opponent's ball not a foul if it's only for a few seconds.
3) Allow inbounders to take the balls whenever they please, but only to inbound a ball when a goal has already been scored.
4) Referee fouls regarding frame perimeter contact more conservatively. No team going to IRI (I think) is going to purposely damage another team's robot. Unless there is an obvious infraction, let the game continue.

Now if we're going to go with some more radical ideas, I have some of those as well:
Option A: During qualification matches, play the game like Jim Zondag suggested- a big shootout with three (or two) balls in play that are marked differently that doesn't take assists into account. This will help guarantee that the best robots take the top seeds. Then, in eliminations, play with all the real rules. All the teams there know how to form alliances that play Aerial Assist- they don't need qualification rounds to get them to know the game.

Option B: During qualification matches, play the game with two balls per alliance that are marked differently, bring in more referees, and play the game with assists. Then, in eliminations, play the game the original way.

I like Option A because it lets the best ball-scoring robots seed up top more easily, then it lets the strategy come out in how alliances are composed in eliminations. It also doesn't crush a team with a bad schedule and bad luck as much.

Anyone think this is a good idea? Or am I just crazy and frustrated by fouls and broken partners?

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I would like no zones first off, and then crazy 12 ball play as an endgame. At the last 30 seconds, each hp would get an extra 2 balls to do whatever with, then no assists, 15 point high goals, 5 point low goals, 0 point trusses, and 30 point catches. Catching your own truss should also be worth a catch during anytime.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I think this might be my favorite suggestion so far. It wouldn't be that much more work for refs, especially if these extra balls aren't worth assists or anything, and it could lead to some crazy fun last few seconds to watch.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I agree with both those rules. The 6 ball autonomous rule reminds me of this post:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ht=6+ball+auto

Also, I think it would be nice to see the game played with multiple balls per alliance and no assists.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

How about a coopertition catch?
A white ball is put on the field during the last thirty seconds. If one alliance trusses it, and the other one catches it, it would be 2 qualifying points.

(Please don't, I still have nightmares about this from 2012)

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Some of these suggestions would require a we-write of the game software, multiple balls in play, more than three ball auto, ext....

It barely functions as is!

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Remove the top bar of the high goals. In order to score in the high goal a team just needs to get it through the uprights and break the plane of the alliance station.

This game gets a LOT faster, and in my opinion a lot more fun. :)

No. Seriously. Someone needs to do this.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

That might have been a fine rule on kickoff day, but at this point many teams have optimized their robots to accurately lob the ball into the high goal from precise scoring positions. By getting rid of the top bar, you would be eliminating an entire class of "finishers", and putting lots of successful designs with lower-powered shooters at a sudden disadvantage. Worth it? Maybe, but it's pretty drastic.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Plenty of time to add a few springs to your shooter before July.
;)

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

This is the best rule change I have seen, I love this. (goalies become useless though)

Also lets move the sticks to the ends of the truss, those things are annoying.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I don't disagree with the idea of this rule, but for conversation sake I'll point out this just WRECKS goalie bots.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Definitely this.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Here's a quick and dirty endgame idea: At the end of the game, an Alliance may receive 30 endgame points by having a robot place the ball on the safety barrier on the side of the truss closest to that alliance's goals, as long as the ball was not contacted by a human player during the action of placing the ball.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I love it! Now where should we put the minibot towers?

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

The two poles on the truss would be perfect!

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Give everybody, 10+ pounds to add stuff (maybe more) and hanging is worth 20pts

On a not so serious note. The company that sells these balls also sells a 12ft one. 12 FEET! The alliance that ballances it on the truss wins.

Note: a 12ft ball is over 1000$ IIRC

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

If your gonna use minibots why not use the tethered ones from 2002 to go back and forth to the zones for bonus points?

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Technical fouls should not be free points until the last ~45 seconds.

Instead, when a technical foul is called, re-light the pedestal, so that the affected alliance is allowed to enter a second ball into play. As far as the referees are concerned, the two balls are just one ball that is capable of being in two places at once (only one set of assists to track). Also, the assists don't reset until both balls have been scored, effectively letting you double-score a cycle. Assists are also easier to get because there's a second ball.

The benefit of this is that the amount of penalty points you get is directly tied to how capable your alliance is.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

For what it's worth, these suggestions wouldn't require any FMS software changes. For anyone who hasn't seen it, the referee interface for tracking assists is just a 3x3 grid of buttons, with teams along one axis and zones along the other. To do #1, referees just need to use the buttons along one of the diagonals and ignore the rest.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

As I recall the roof at IRI is pretty tall so you should be able to in-bound via a partner bot, then throw a high arc across the truss, single bounce and through the uprights.

Or maybe just a direct shot up over the truss and into the second level :rolleyes:

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Lets make the game a little harder. Let's put the blue goals above the blue driver station. 2011 style, now you have to stare down your own robot when you are launching balls.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Add an upright (extra large) hula-hoop to the center of the truss on top, with the open ends facing down the court. While trussing, if the ball passes through the hoop you get 20 points

reason: scoring through the hoop is an incentive to not throw to the human player. point value is high because you would likely ignore a simple 10pt bonus *cough* catching *cough*

Or just make [robot] catching worth 20 or 30 points instead of 10

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

A two-parter end game:

• 40 points for hanging - but because the 60" rule is still in effect, it comes with a 20-point penalty. :ahh:
• But if you jump without going over 60", it becomes a double hang for 80 points. :eek: :yikes:

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I like the idea of having multiple balls on the field at a time, it adds another layer of strategic depth. So what if IRI did something like this:

Each alliance has access to up to 5 autonomous balls (these balls are just simple red or blue balls), but they MUST have a red or blue ball marked with a triangle. None of the autonomous balls re-enter the field after autonomous, but the one marked with the triangle enters like a normal game piece.

At the start of the match 2 red balls and 2 blue balls are balanced on the truss. Teams can shoot balls at the balls on the truss to knock them down. They are now accessible as a regular game-piece. These balls are marked with a circle or a square, to identify they are not an autonomous ball. When they are scored, they re-enter the field like any other ball.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Enter the 2007 rampbot.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Our is hanging on the wall.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I can't belive no one has said this yet but Full Court Shooting into the high goal.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

That is no fun... the strategy is 95% of the fun in this game!

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Full Court Shooters incoming... not that I wouldn't absolutely love that...

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I agree. I spent the majority of build season writing and testing vision code in opencv (first time using it, great library.) We got to the competition and had an issue with exposure and an issue with communication. So, I spent the entire rest of the competition writing a calibration routine to reduce the effects of lighting, adjusted the camera's exposure, and wrote a hysteresis threshold to add precision to the image analyzer. (I actually ported the whole thing to JavaCV because I'm more adept at java and so is the rest of my team)

Well, all that work (done with the help of a mentor who works in image analysis) was scrapped for 254's driver side CheesyVision. Because of a communication error.

I mean, its fine that its within the rules but just frustrating when you spent time trying to make a truly autonomous robot using technology that applies to an increasingly popular real world field, and such a simple yet entirely legal solution comes along.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Dreaming about significant game changes is fun. I think it would be best, however, to take an opportunity to pore through all of the rules that made the refereeing so difficult and find places to simplify life a bit. Maybe IRI can create a model for FRC penalty rules that could influence future official game rules.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Not really a rule change as much as just pointing out a loop hole that I haven't seen posted about anywhere.

Any robot that is not currently playing in the match is a ROBOT.
A MATCH is indicative of any match regardless of if the robot is suppose to be in it.

Given the 4 team alliances in elims each alliance should be allowed to place up to 4 auto balls on the field at the very minimum with the rule as it is now. I'm envisioning a particular blue robot being able to pull a 4 ball auto off with the help of some "corny vision" or was it "cheesy vision"??? :rolleyes:

That would make for some exciting autonomous periods.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

More referees.
Or current number of referees, and additional people with a new/distinct role: scorekeeper

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

If an alliance tries to throw the ball over the truss to the human player, truss points are only given if the ball stays inbounds or is caught by the human player.

This would keep teams from blindly launching over the truss out of bounds for a quick 10 points and move the ball forward.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Partial credit for missed catches. Give out 5 points if a trussed ball contact an alliance partner before hitting the ground, regardless of whether or not that robot gains possession.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I really don't think lots of teams were intending to blindly throw the ball out of bounds and hoping for truss points and the volunteers placing the ball in their favor. I think almost every team intended for the HP to receive the ball but had to play around relentless defense. Adding yet *another* rule punishing teams for the actions of defenders is not how I would want to improve the game.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I've seen multiple comments about allowing more balls during auto. I think it would be fun if more matches looked like this: http://youtu.be/ZJhH6ZNl5mA

This video was taken during a practice field match at CMP with our friends 1318 (Issaquah Robotics Society) and 494 (Martians) :D

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Just gotta say based on all of the ideas shown here by people who've seen and played the game I give props to the GDC for being able to come up with a game from scratch year after year with never fully seeing the game played.

I would agree with the rule of sending out of bounds balls to return to 1st HP if not past the truss. It made no sense to me that you would get the ball advanced for missing.

Also G11 should be called if the ball doesn't hit the truss, pole, or HP. Shooting the ball way over the head of the HP only to have a field person quickly hand the ball (or sometimes a different ball) to the HP anyway made no incentive for teams to actually be accurate with their truss shot.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

As a capable Goalie Bot. I say yes please!

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

You already were a nightmare against 3 balls in auto. With this rule change playing against you would be catastrophic haha

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Many a times the ball was going everywhere but to HP. If a robot is defended, the team can decide whether to risk a penalty, its no different than shooting into a goal. When shooting into a goal, if opponent robot defends and the ball does not make it into the goal, it will land either into field or outside (in few instances back into robot). When it lands outside alliance is auto-penalized in terms of time. So if you are not confident that you can shoot to HP and he/she can reach out or catch the ball expect some penalty. Got to pay the price for scaring refs and field setup crew.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Are you saying the 9 referees used at each field at Championship weren't enough?

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Easier rule change:

Truss catch = 20 to 25 points
Catching on one bounce = 5 points

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I really don't know why you don't make autonomous "smoke 'em if ya got em", especially at a place like IRI. How much of a risk are you willing to take in autonomous? 6? 9? 12?

I do also like the idea of changing the high goals to endzone field goal posts like JVN suggested. The ability for anyone to become a "finisher" can make this game a very fun kind of chaotic.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I like a change where if the ball leaves the field it enters back into the field at that point. Dropped in by field personnel if it did not go out over a human player. Balls shot over the goals are re-entered at ends (sides). If the area the ball is being re-entered has a matching color human player ... they get the ball to re-enter. If not... a drop ball by the field personnel.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I like this change. This will make autonomous more interesting at IRI ! Autonomous got boring this year after almost all top alliances put up 60-70 pts.

Here are a couple simple suggestions without drastically changing the game.
1. 25 point catch
2. remove G40
3. in the last 30 seconds: 20 point truss shot

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I think there is a broad opinion that the number of referees and the tasks they were given at the Regionals resulted in many problems.

I'm pretty certain there were less than 9 referees on the field at a time at the Regionals. From video I watched, 7 referees (including the Chief Ref) on the Archimedes field. Refereeing was good (but not perfect, of course) on that field.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

Each field had 4 referees in charge of scoring, 2 referees on the far side looking for infractions and the Head Referee. (Although if the possession refs saw something, ie G12, then they can make a call and let the HR know.) There would be two spare referees to help provide breaks to everyone. For elims and Einstein there was 4 referees strictly scoring, 4 referees strictly for infractions, and then the Head Referee.

During the regionals, significantly less. Originally it was 4 referees with a spare ref to provide breaks. Obviously not enough. Some events pulled off 5 referees on duty and 1 on break after an update from HQ came out. Whatever FIRST recommends, I try to push VCs to get 2 more than that.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I agree with this. There should be some actual interaction of the robot with the ball.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I love the idea of 12 ball endgame, and catching your own truss should be worth something. We played many practice matches with just random balls and it was a hoot to watch!

Unlimited ball auton, nice idea. All those balls need to be cleared before assists can start though.

I also like the idea of some risk in shooting the ball outside of HP's reach, weather foul points, or inbounded back at the original inbound location. If HP needs to leave the box, the ball goes back to the start and assist points are removed.

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

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I am going to go out on a limb here and say, the game really does not need that many changes. By the end of the year, the game was very exciting to watch. There are a lot of different ways to play it, and a lot of interesting elements to it.
For IRI, the quality of players will be quite high. I suspect that a lot of the issues that this game has suffered with will not be there.

A couple of big items:
I would like a count for G12.D just like pinning. I would let others decide on the count amount, but I think a 3-5 second visual count (IE punching the air) would be beneficial for "isolation". Pinning needs the 5 count tomahawk so that drivers can tell when the count is starting, and when they need to let up. Isolating the ball should get the same. I like a 3 count for strategic reasons, but a 5 count would be consistent relative to pinning.

G40: Touch a robot, you get a technical....Reach into the field, you get a foul.

I would also request removal of G21. I don't like that robots could be designed to reach 20" past the frame perimeter and the the ability then for these to reach over safety zone. This seems like a mistake to me.

My change requests to G40 & G21 do add some safety concern though for human players as there is a definite interaction zone, and I would hate to give a technical to someone that got injured by a robot ramming into them. My choice of re-interpreting those fouls was mostly due to inconsistency of calls during the season.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I want to see the game play as is with the penalties dialed down. If we add extra balls to the field them the strategy element will be lost and you'll see teams doing the same thing they do every year, doing their own thing and not working together. I really think this game can shine at IRI as is.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

I like this one. It takes a judgment call and makes it much more concrete.

Re: IRI Rule Changes
 

This is the best suggestion I've seen yet. Too many times I've seen teams inadvertently get tech fouls when they're trying to block a robot and the ball is in just the wrong place. Giving teams a chance to see that it's about to get them a penalty, before it does, will result in less isolation AND less penalties, I think. It doesn't even need to be clear what the ref is counting down. See a ref counting? Better move soon!