Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

The penalties are excellent. When you were presented with the game, you were given rules. And it was your task to design and build a robot that could complete the task and play the game. You knew what penalties would be given for, and you cannot expect them to be lenient because they are hard to follow. You have to design a robot and control system that can adapt to change and be able to stay out of trouble. If your team keeps breaking rules and receives penalties then it is not because the rules are hard to follow, it is because your design was not developed to enough to easily follow them.

~benthos

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

this has to tell you something...
no offense to anyone when I say this honestly
but this forum does not tolerate the questioning of FIRST.. even if it is well intentioned.. with the % over 50... it HAS to mean something
because if the poll shows 50% it is most likely MUCH MUCH higher
let the flame begin :(

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

I do believe that the penalties are too high, but I understand why they are so high. Our robot had an arm that could reach out 10 ft, and could seriously injure human players. However, that brings me to my next point. If FIRST truly wanted to protect us from the robots on the field, why do they have the human loading station in the first place? Putting a 30 pt penalty on an action isn't very helpful if someone were to get hurt.

I also believe that if a penalty has the ability to drastically change the results of a match, then that aspect of the match should be reconsidered. Our alliance outscored our opponents by 26 points, but an alliance partner bumped the opposing side in the human loading zone and we lost. So, for two reasons I dislike the 30 point penalty: it does not really protect the human player and it drastically alters the outcome of many matches.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

The penalties are ridiculous. Absolutely, without a doubt, ridiculous.

Dean Kamen, in his annual speech, habitually compares FIRST to a sport. However, the penalties incurred in the 2005 game do not reflect any sort of penalty scheme in any sport in any part of the world. None.

When penalties completely affect the outcome of a game, they should not be called. This is why referees in basketball refrain from calling fourth-quarter technical fouls or ticky-tack fouls (fouls which are called on a technicality, but whose consequences had no effect on the game). The refs should NOT decide the outcome of a game. The talent of the players of that game should.

This, of course, touches on the main controversy with penalties in sports. If blatant penalties are not called, they may affect the game just as much as ticky-tack penalties that are. However, in general, sports referees consider the gravity of each penalty they give. Sports officials hate to decide games. Rightfully so.

30-Point penalties in the 2005 game therefore do not make sense. They determine the outcome of the game. As soon as a 30-point penalty is given, the match is effectively worthless, as the offending team no longer has any reasonable chance to win.

I am in no way saying the penalties in place are unjustly so. Obviously, most of the penalties are in place for good reason. The human loading-zone penalty protects human players, for instance. This penalty also protects a disabled robot from attack as a sitting duck.

Rather, I make the assertion that 30 points is a ridiculous value to be deducted from scores that often never even reach that number (in qualifying, at least).

Obviously, FIRST is trying to discourage dangerous behavior with a 30 point, game-nullifying penalty. However, I believe penalties should be worth 3 or 6 points (the equivalent of one or two tetras), just as basketball free-throws are shot to compensate for injustice. ALSO, in situations where a robot is endangering the safety of humans (an arm goes out of the field, etc), the offending robot should be disabled for a short period of time (15-30 seconds).

I believe this type of system would assess the gravity of each offense individually, and apply penalties accordingly. Dangerous robots are neutralized and will avoid this behavior in the future, but the round is not a lost cause.

Please, let the robots play. Let's find out who has the best team, not the luckiest.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

I've had a bad experience with penalties. Upon reflection, and watching videos and doing som review, I don't think the penalties are high. I think it has more to do with the penalty assignments and items related to point-of-view.

Look on the brightside, at least there are no negative scores.

Chances are it will all be worked out by the time nationals roll around. If not, I have a feeling that things might stray from gracious professionalism

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

problem being that by incurring a '3' point penalty by rushing the tetra and not being completely in the loading zone might allow the robot to get a 10 point row, making the '3' point penalty an acceptable comprimise. If FIRST allowed the teams to become sloppy in order to add the small raise in score then people will start to get hurt.

i guess giving the refs more flexibilty would be nice, but the strict rule interpretations has won us some matches before so i cant say im objecting

its meant to be a game, and it really isnt about luck, its about which team can play the best inside the rules, and assessing large penalties has nothing to do with luck....

true, the 30 point penalty wont do anything for a hurt player, but it keeps all robots from ever getting into a situation that would cause that sort of injury, after the refs at VCU made it obvious that they were calling that rule strictly, robots on the opposing alliance stopped completely even when not necessary in case they might bump a tetra loading robot

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

When we were presented the game and given the rules we did not know what penalties would be given for. In the origina rules, <G15> (the rule concerning interference in a loading zone) was not nearly as specific as it needed to be in order for teams to form strategies. Then Update 4 gave examples to help clarify what would constitute a penalty and teams formed strategies around them. Then Update 15 (posted after the first weekend of regionals) redefined the rule again, contradicting at least one of the examples from Update 4:
I understand that the penalties are necessary for safety, and I don't believe that they are too high. What I do believe is too high is the frequency at which they are called. I understand that bumping a robot while a human player is reaching inside it to place a tetra is a major safety hazard, and well worth a 30-point penalty. But I don't understand how one wheel of a robot rolling over the loading zone during a pushing battle, with the human player safely on the pressure pad, is worth a 30-point penalty. In my opinion, FIRST is ignoring the spirit of the rule and put most teams defensive strategies at a major disadvantage.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

Jake I agree. The penalties are certainly not too high, especially since they are that way to keep field resetters and human players safe. It is the frequency at which they are called that I think is upsetting people. The referees are doing their job though, and its a tough job watching 6 robots so closely. I think perhaps they could use a little more logical judgement sometimes. For instance, in a round in Phoenix a disabled robot was given a penalty. Again, being a referee is a tough job. Maybe if there were more referees it would help to remedy the situation, but I don't believe the penalties are hurting the gameplay except in those strange circumstances. I don't think it hurt our team in the competition; it comes with all competitions or sports with this style. There will be "bad calls" that go your way, and some that don't. It's just a game, and its only part of the FIRST experience. It is just like the real world in this respect. The refs do their best, and everyone should do their best to avoid penalties. Maximize the fun everyone :D

I apoligize if I made any spelling errors, Spell Check seems to be malfunctioning currently. :D

-Steve

Re: Warnings and Consistency
 

Yes a warning is good..the refs can say what they expect...also consistently calling the penalities is fair.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

i think that the penalties might seem high for the level of scoring in this years game but there are reasons behind most things. safety was behind the 30 point penalties. the safety for the human players and drive team. i think the reason is valid but the cost a bit too high. its only an opinion and its like a rear end (for lack of a better term), everyones got one.

-Crash

Wow i cant belive i just quoted my APUSH teacher. thats bad

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

The penalties were fine. I just have a bit of disappointment when refs' call become inconsistent.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

The penalties would be much easier to take if the refs were consistant. From what I've heard from our Phoenix travel team, there were two refs, one that called maybe one penalty every few matches, and one that gave out many penalties, especially for being in the HP zone. The "nice" ref would signal a team if he thought they were in a loading zone, enabling them to avoid the penalty, while the other would stand there waiting for a HP to load a tetra. It really cost some teams badly.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

well inconsistent calling has always been a part of nearly every sport ever made, and people just have to live with inconsistant calling

i watch basketball way too much and as much as I yell at the TV for a bad call i understand thats just how the game plays out, becuase the refs are only human and cannot be perfect

so remember that refs are doing the best they can, and remember that you will get one ref that believes you should have looked at the rules and known better and another who wants to offer as much help as possible, its all part of the game

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

I agree with Paul about safety not being the only reason for the loading zone penalty. It would be a vastly different game if there were not loading zone penalties, especially in the auto zone. Most teams would have a very difficult time picking tetras from the stand if they were being defended against while doing so. Still, if instead of 30 the penalty was, say, 10 points, there would be more "far end of the field" action which would make matches more interesting, and 10 points would certainly be enough to rule out "loading zone blocking and bashing" as a viable strategy.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

Many points are being illustrated with basketball, so I will use soccer.
In soccer, there are penalties for going out of bounds (other team gets ball) andhitting the ball with your hand (same). But, the scores are usually very low. However, intentionally tripping someone or using hands in a certain area (unless you are a goalie) carries the penalty known as a penalty kick. The person who was fouled gets a kick at the goal. No one can interfere except the goalie, and he can't move until the ball is kicked. One penalty kick can win a game. One foul can equal one penalty kick, which can equal one loss.
The penalty system in FIRST is the same way. Small stuff may or may not affect the outcome. Big stuff probably will. Avoid the big stuff, and you should be fine. Avoid robots that look like they are in the loading zone.