Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

I completely agree with some sort of rule change... breaking the plane is just to easy and most of the time teams don't know that they do it.

I also wanted to point out, as a driver, if I put my controller in station 3, and my robot was in the far quadrant I saw three robots in three different positions. Looking through two pieces of plexyglass made looking at the robot, and trying to aquire the ball (or stay inside the quadrant,) pretty impossible.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

We all understand the rule; we simply do not like it. I was watching some archived matches of the St. Louis Regional and saw a left-most bot start in hybrid mode and clip the front pole of the inside wall. The bot stopped dead in its tracks. To fix it, the driver adjusted in teleop, at which point the tail end of the bot re-crossed the line. That bot got 2 penalties for that 1 incident. It's downright ridiculous.

I also saw a bot shoved backwards across a line by an opponent, without penalty at first. The opponent separated, the shoved bot turned a ways to go around, was temporarily in the correct quadrant, turned slightly more, broke the plane with only a corner and BAM red penalty flag goes up from the ref. It makes me glad we have a low gear capable of (theoretically) shoving around 160lbs to "kindly" bump people out of our way. In all honesty, the end result for getting penalized for shoving someone out of your way when you've already made low speed contact is the same as the situation described in the beginning of this paragraph.

The GDC could amend the rule such that the finish lines are the lines where the planes cannot be broken, yet bots cannot fully re-cross the two other quadrant lines. Wording it like this would achieve the apparently desired result of preventing bots from passing a finish line then turning around to place on or block the overpass, yet it would also compromise with the actual drivers who are getting dinged for every little uncontrollable infraction in the turns.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

i support this to it's not for safety and it's slowing down reset

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Why is it rediculous? The robot broke the rules twice ... they should be penalized twice.

Being shoved across the line isn't a penalty ... ref got it right.
Crossing the line afterwards is a penalty ... again ref got it right.
Whats the issue?

Penalized for shoving??? Where is that in the rule book? As long as you push within the rules (and there are rules around pushing) you can do it without penalty.

Everyone knew these rules. They were there since kickoff. If your team did not plan for how the track was set up and did not plan for how you were going to cross the lines, do not complain when you start racking up penalty points.

Fact is, if you have control of your drivetrain you should not get any penalties from <G22>. The problem is that there are many robots out there where their drivers cannot control their drivetrains because they are either too fast or not responsive enough.

I'll (again) use my team as an example. 16 matches running laps with skid steer and a wide frame ... 1 penalty. Understand the game, your control system and the situation your driver is in and you will do well. Ignore it at your own peril.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

I agree with Paul. The rule is fine, at Midwest, the referees appeared to enforce it uniformly. Drivers need to adapt their play.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Drivers should have played with the rule in mind from the beginning. I think "adapt their play" is an odd way to say "stop breaking the rule."

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Our operator got a penalty for crossing over the line in our first match. He knew he did it, and also knew not to do it any more.

We told him, if you can't make it to the position you want in the next quadrant then don't fully enter into it. We had no penalties for crossing over the line for the rest of the weekend.

As for the glare...our drivers and coaches noticed it on Thursday, adjusted to what was real and what was a reflection and never had an issue during qualifying or eliminating matches.

I think the biggest issue this year is teams not adjusting to the conditions, getting multiple penalties, adversly effecting the scoring, and causing slow display of the final score. If we knew who won or lost at the end of the match, this game would be much more exciting.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

The issue might not be that your team is well aware of the penalty, the issue is many matches were decided because one team on the alliance had trouble with it and multiple penalties were not at all uncommon. MANY matches were decided by penalties and a clean match was a rare sight.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

i tottally support a rule change our alliance got screwed over by this rule because one of our bots got pushed back at the end of the macth and we would have won, the rule really does need to be tweaked

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

If it was pushed back, no penalty should have been assessed. I would suspect that there was another penalty involved.

This discussion is pointless at this point. Here's why:
The rule is the rule. It's been this way since Kickoff. Changing it now would result in a lot of teams complaining that they had it hard, the later events have it easy, etc.

It doesn't matter whether or not you like the rule, you still need to play by it.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

If your description of the event is accurate, you should not have been penalized.

To address your concern, the rule does not need to be changed. It merely needs to be enforced correctly.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

I also agree with Paul (as I almost always do): if teams do not wish to incur a penalty, they should not break the rules.

However, I've observed and heard of some really "ticky-tack" calls regarding rule <G22>. A more important issue involves whether the robot has actually completely crossed the line then broke the plane in the reverse direction:

Crossing or breaking the plane for the lane divider line can be difficult for a referee to unambiguously determine. In San Diego, the start of tele-operated mode was delayed at least twice to allow a referee to go onto the field to assess whether robots had fully crossed the line. If it's that difficult to determine for a stationary robot, how can the call be reliably made for a robot in motion? Given the severity of the penalty, the referee needs to be absolutely certain that the robot has crossed and re-entered the zone before raising the flag. Maybe something like a 6-inch "DMZ" around that line might make sense?

In some sports (soccer, for example), "advantage" is a consideration in calling a penalty. This means that the infraction is only incurred if the offender is gaining an advantage by breaking the rule. I can see this as being something that the FIRST and especially the referees would not want to enact because it introduces a level of subjectivity to calling penalties.

I tell my driver once you've driven most of the way into a zone, you better just keep on going. A ten point penalty is a killer...

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Now i know some of you here are for this rule and some are not.

Yet i would have to say this rule didn't bother me till i was driving up our home stretch driving forward as fast as i could then turning on the far divider to set up to drive backwards since our robot seems to go better in reverse go figure. But to the true point to call this rule on us though we didn't go forward or backwards on the line only pivot. now why was this called?

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

It was called? That ref needs a little manual re-reading. If you weren't fully across, they shouldn't call it.

In the ref's defense, it can be harder to see whether the robot has crossed or not from their perspective--I'd say they have to go by shadow/seeing line/seeing wheels/seeing bottom of frame.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

After experiencing this at VCU when we received 2 penalties in a QF match when we couldn't tell if we'd recrossed the line on the opposite end due to shoving from opponents in traffic...well nevermind, you'll just say we have to deal with it, and we do. In a qual match we also received a penalty for impeding *after* we'd pushed the robot disable button. Refs aren't perfect and niether are drivers. If you'd re-read my post, my point is that we don't like the rule and the quotes you've listed are simple reiterations of that. Planning for the "field layout" has absolutely nothing with how we designed the robot and everything to do with interpretable dynamic gameplay.

There are several valid points/helpful suggestions here. First, not going into the next quadrant without fully knowing you can make it is key. It seems intuitive at first unless you've spent all day overcoming different system problems and just want to capture a ball for your first hurdle. It's easy to lose track of the line then, especially on the opposite end of the field.

Second, I can attest that to the fact that the glare isn't very noticable. It's probably different for different venues, but it wasn't a deal-breaker for us. Traffic on the opposite end of the field is what hurt us the most. The point in the last paragraph should help avoid that though.

Finally, in other sports/games it is very apparent that a penalty has happened the second that it happens. In this year's game, we have to wait for penalties to magically show up at the end. It's very difficult to adjust your driving if you don't know when or where you've made the mistake, and always driving conservatively is just downright boring to the crowd. It's just as frustrating as not being able to fully test hybrid mode coding adjustments without risking penalties in a match.

If there was a way they could at least make the lights on the driver station flash when a team receives a penalty, the driver would know it right away and adjust to it. Maybe that's easy to implement, maybe it's not, but it'd definitely relieve some frustration.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Because the rule is not whether you go forward or backward over the line ... it's if you break the plane of the line once you've crossed it.

This rule is being strictly enforced this year, My suggestion is to coach your drivers properly and have a strategy for crossing (or not crossing) the lines.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Madwolvez whispers to Daniel "i am the driver if i said i was driving........."


this is true,

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

For a vast majority of the <G22> penalties called (and some other infractions), one of the four corner refs will wave their colored flags signaling that a robot has broken the plane in the reverse direction. This isn't easy for a driver to see, but it is possible for the coaches to watch the refs and factor in the penalties (in fact, a few different alliances walked onto the field talking about how many penalty points they/their opponents had and how it would factor into the score).

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

From this Q&A system answer:

That seems pretty definitive.

-dave

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Just one re-crossing penalty can negate five laps around the course, or more than one hurdle and robot crossing, or almost negate the bonus for having your ball on the rack at the end. One penality by each team can erase the alliance's whole score is some matches. At the Arizona regional, one team's robot did a spin on the end line near their starting position and got 120 points in penatlies in hybrid mode. Penalties decide way to many matches. At the end of the game, you have no idea who's won until the penalties are accessed. Is the rule meant to keep the game flowing or to make the game harder?

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

The CD community is divided 50/50 at best on this issue. The rule as written was clear and no one is arguing that fact. How can you claim FIRST is inflexible and immature if the rule is fine for 1/2 but not fine for the other 1/2?

The rule is the rule, so let's do our part to make sure our alliance partners don't break the rule. If every third team does this, then there will be no penalties for G22 the rest of the year and the general public will enjoy the game without having to worry about G22 penalties. We, the teams, are FIRST. We make FIRST what it is so how we react to this rule will define the rest of the season.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

:yikes: This might be held up as an example of thinking before you post, lol.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Having these two posts juxtaposed in this way forces a brief tangental discussion. I have rarely seen a better example of the "wrong" and "right" way to respond to a thread.

Throughout all my years working with the FIRST program, I have never known the folks in Manchester to turn a deaf ear to constructive, well reasoned, thoughtful criticism that is offered in a manner that is obviously intended to help improve the program. They may not always agree with what they hear, and they may not always respond with a change that satisfies everyone. But when the criticism is offered in an honest and constructive manner, they do listen.

Paul's post offers an excellent example of stating an opinion in which not everyone may share, but doing it in a manner that is constructive, polite, non-confrontational, and - dare I say it - both gracious and professional. We would all do well to learn from this example (sometimes Paul makes it easy to understand why he is a WFA).

Conversely, firing off a blast full of invective-filled tripe that offers no concrete suggestions or recommendations for improvement, but is merely an expression of bile does nothing to advance either the point of view of the author or the discussion overall. A message that is mean-spirited and demeaning helps no one.

Healthy disagreement and constructive criticism are always fine, particularly when accompanied by alternative solutions. But nasty carping without constructive input is unnecessary and counter-productive. Those that don't understand the difference might want to read through this thread.

Thank you, Paul, for reminding us how to communicate as a professional should.

-dave