Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

I have much sympathy for the drivers in this year's competition. Depth perception is a tricky thing, especially when you are trying to focus on an object 50 feet away with many obstructions in your view.
It is very easy to be critical when you have a close up view from the comfort of your living room. Some drivers have said that they have not had a problem, and I'm glad to hear it. Many others, though, have stated that it is almost impossible to follow the rule the way it stands now. I believe the penalties issued today prove that.
I am not a driver, so I will not be critical of the drivers who are having a hard time. I would suggest others do the same...;)

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Okay, first to the comment that the timeout will let a team run a ridiculous distance to fetch a ball. First, if you're trying to give a pass to people turning a corner or something, the timeout is going to be very brief. Like a 3 count. I don't think I've seen any teams that can actually chase down and corral a trackball in 3 seconds. I think your proposed solution is just too complicated, really. A short timeout would be simplest.

Second, to jgannon.... Wow. Didn't realize how bad the lighting was. Ummm... anybody recall the legality of polarized safety glasses?:cool:

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Section 3 of the manual outlines the requirements for safety glasses. It requires ANSI spec and no shading with the exception of rose, blue or amber tints. If you can find a decently priced set of polarized glasses in one of those tints that still looks fairly transparent please post it here on CD so the rest of us may enjoy.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Im not saying that it is easy but it is not exactly hard to not break the G22 We attended the Midwest regional, I drove every qualifying and elimination match for us and never got one G22 called on us, Actually Team 1675 went scott free of penalties. There where a few on our alliance at times but never on us. There the rules people there not gonna change.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

as Gary pointed, out, the polarizing filters would need to be 90 degrees from normal for the polarization to cancel out the polarization off of the lane divider.. either that, or we could drive with our heads turned to the side...

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

I hated watching teams that just crossed the lines, get nudged by opposing teams or teammates chasing a ball and end up shadowing the line and seeing the red/blue flag wave. "-10pts for you!" "why?" "because you weren't in control of the other robots" "no fair!" :ahh: :P

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

For any ref that follows this, I ask that they read the rulebook the teams are given. Especially, <G32>, which reads:(emphasis mine)
If the teams are under this understanding, and the refs have a different understanding, then the GDC needs to pick one and tell everyone that this is the right interpretation.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Driver/Programmer for 1024 here...

As long as you're paying attention... it's not hard to follow. Personally, I don't think the amount of people getting penalties is much higher than the first week in 2006 where half the robots were on the wrong side of the field at period change...

Ditto on it's an element of the game.

-q

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

I saw this happen several times, mainly during highly congested areas.

Hypothetical: From a ref's standpoint, if you can't tell whether they were bumped across or drove across, what do you call?

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

I don't know. Either you take the FLL approach (benefit of the doubt) or you go the stickler road (they crossed, therefore penalty).

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

There are many times more penalties this year than in 06.

I was a ref in 05 (during week one, no less), and teams were horrible at not committing loading zone violations. I'm convinced that this year we saw more penalty points in week one than in 2005. A lot more.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Agreed, without a doubt even. 2005 was horrible until people started catching on. There was an easy solution that year, this year's is not so simple, I'm afraid.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

Dave, I also must disagree. Yes, I am horrified by how many games have penalties called during the match play, and just shocked by how many games have been DECIDED by a penalty.

The flaw is in the game design, and I agree that this quantity of penalties should not have been necessary to enforce the game play.

However, the rule should not be reversed at this point. Paul Copioli said it best: the rule was 100% clear from the start. Hence, it became a design challenge - you must play the game without having to ever double back. Sure, it may put arm bots at a disadvantage, but that's a strategic risk you're willing take in hopes of a greater point reward. There are great arms (and shooters) out there that hurdle without ever getting close to a penalty.

If you want to change that rule now, I want 6 more weeks to redesign so that this can be a fair competition.

-Alex Golec

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

i was all for leaving the rule the way it was, but after seeing the magic pictures the gdc should change something. either field design or game play. or both.

Re: Rule G22 needs to be changed
 

I would not want the rule changed to allow for a robot to double back, nor would I want the rule changed to allow up to 79 1/2 inches of a robot to go back over the lines. Nor would I want to see a timed period when you could go back for any reason. I fail to see what design changes anyone would make if say the line where ten inches wide and you only recieved a penalty if after you completely crossed the in line CCW direction and were penalized when you broke the plane of the far side of the line if for whatever reason you ended up going back over the line (the entire ten inch width) in a CW direction. From the feeds that I watched during week one, it seems as though that a line width solution would have negated most of the penalties for <R22> and would have still given the penalties to those that intentionally traveled CW. A rear corner of your robot going back over the line 2" while you make a turn is simply not penalty worthy nor is it against the intent of <R22>. Nor is going back over the line two inches after to make a bumpt to pass (Not a push to pass) signal on a robot that is impeading traffic.