Problem with Penalties
 

I think many would agree that there were too many penalties and matches decided by these penalties. I know its super hard to see your team play well in a match, lead in the real time only to find out a few minutes later that you lost due to a penalty or two. I know it turned many off on Overdrive.

I know many have proposed to change, alter or get rid of some rules to decrease the amount of matches decided by pentalties. I propose a change to the away penalties effect the game and final score. Looking at the major sports, I can only think of golf that simply takes points away from the penalized team (or in Golf add strokes). In the other sports, penalties alter the game and give the other team an advantage but doesn't directly effect the final score. In football, they move the ball foward or backward; basketball has foul shots for the other team to earn points; hockey takes a player away for a specific amount time.

To the best of my knowledge, there has always been penalties that simply deducted points from the penalized (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I'm sure there will always be penalties in FIRST, so I think we should look at how penalties effect the game. Perhaps disable the penalized robot for 5 seconds, or give the other alliance 3 seconds at the end of the match for each penalty with the other alliance disabled.

Anyway, I think simply deducting points away at the end of the match for penalties isn't the best solution. I think by giving the other team an advantage so they can earn points (instead of just being given points (by having opponents lose points)) is better.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

If there were too many matches decided by penalties, I would suggest that is the fault of the teams rather than the fault of the game. I humbly suggest to those teams that do not like receiving penalties that they try very, very hard to avoid them.

We had discussions with our drive team before our first regional, and after our first penalty about how to avoid penalties, and remained largely penalty-free throughout two regionals. Yes, it did mean that we had to give up some opportunities to score points, but we did the math... taking a ten point penalty and scoring a ten point hurdle, vs. scoring a two point lap is not difficult to compare. We built our robot to score, and play the game the way it was meant to be played, rather than to try and keep other teams from scoring.

Did many teams take penalties trying to prevent us from scoring? Well, a few... perhaps not as many as should have... but that is merely because they were not following the rules (clearly explained by the referee) regarding interfering with a team attempting to hurdle.

I don't like it either when matches are decided by penalties, but in my experience (Portland, Seattle and Atlanta... not that I saw ALL the matches at these events, of course...) there were a lot of teams that either failed to keep their robot moving in a counter-clockwise direction, or decided that rather than playing the game they would try to stop someone else from playing the game. I can't blame the GDC for the poor choices of teams that do not make an effort to follow the rules. (And yes, I know these rules took effort to follow, and am very proud of our drive team for their efforts to stay within the rules and avoid penalties. It was challenging, but certainly not impossible.)

I would, however, be willing to see penalties enacted in a different fashion... for instance a ten second deactivation of a robot that "goes backwards"... or seeing the refs provided with interfaces to the scoring system so that the penalties are recorded in "real time". But there has to be some significant consequence for teams who take the "easy path" of just blocking or interfering with a team that has taken the time and effort to design a robot that is actually capable of playing the game.

I can't argue with the suggestion that there might be a better solution... but I would suggest the best solution is simply for teams to follow the rules.

Jason

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

My personal biggest issue wasnt our team being penalized for breaking the rules. It was our alliance being penalized when one member broke the rules. We lost matches not because we broke the rules but because our alliance members decided not to follow them. These were matches we had won but then taken away because of penalties, G22's which seemed like they were more accidents than intentional. No one gained anything from the breaking of the plane so why was it a penalty? More importantly, why did it decide the outcomes of the matches? Say I am bitter about it if you want, I probably am. All I am saying is I am a little mad that our season was so influenced by penalties on other teams.

Solutions, I cant complain without offering some solutions. One option would be to record win/loss by team. Each team gets their alliance's score - any penalties THEY committed. This way the teams that break the rules are punished but their alliances arent. Obviously in the elims this might have to change but frankly the way penalties work now is fine for elims. If you picked them you WANTED to work with them. Option 2, time delay at the beginning. Each robot accumulates x number of seconds for penalties. These are cumulative and assessed at the start of each match. Option 3, make penalty points into a ranking category. The teams with the least penalties seed higher. Probably wont make HUGE difference but if you pair it with qualifying points (qp-penalties) you might encourage teams to take less penalties when they realize it will really mess with their score.

Just some thoughts which are coming to me at this really late hour.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

As I explained in another thread I don't see the need for penalties...


Games like 2005 and 2007 were fun becuase they had very minor penalties - the games themselves didn't rely on penalties to function. The penalties only restricted minor things, like entering the ramp zone.\

Games that rely on penalties risk failure.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

They didn't rely on penalties, but in 2005 they certainly were decided by penalties on a fairly regular basis. Those 30 point penalties were practically the kiss of death, and most matches had some sort of loading zone violation.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

I agree. Seriously, it isnt very hard to stop your robot from going back over the line. The penalties were not put in just for kicks, or to add another dimension to gameplay (even though they arguably did add another dimension to a team's strategy). The purpose of the penalty was to keep the teams moving in the right direction. With a penalty so harsh and with the clearly stated rules, it seems obvious to me that they want continuous flow of traffic. The penalty was designed to negate the sequence of hurdling and then passing under the overpass. If the penalties were fewer points, it would be worth it for a team to go backwards for a trackball, because after they hurdle it and get the two points for a lap they will have gained ten points. In this situation the point of the game is ruined because teams would go backwards, and there wouldn't be continuous flow of traffic in the right direction. Clearly when the game was created that is what they were trying to avoid.

My team recently competed at WPI BattleCry and they modified G22 so that the entire robot must cross over the line to get a penelty as opposed to just a small portion. With this addition to the rules hardly a single match was decided by penalties, not only that but I would bet that more than half the matches were penalty free.
Even with the penalties I still think overdrive was a great game, it was really exciting, and seriously, has there ever been a game piece as great as a trackball.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

I agree that the best solution is for teams to follow the rules more effectively; however, if this were practical, penalties wouldn't be part of the game in the first place.

I do think having an entire alliance penalized by one robot's erroneous actions is an area that could be dealt with a little more "fairly". I'm hesitant to say fairly, because one could easily argue that being paired with a penalty-happy partner is part of the luck of the draw, and since it could happen to any team, it is not unfair. However, it definitely contributes to the teams' perceptions of unfairness, and thus often takes something away from their experience at a given competition.

I do agree that, with certain games, alternate solutions for awarding penalties than simply taking away points could be considered. This year, however, it wouldn't be very feasible to have an offending robot disabled for a few seconds, with the track as narrow as it sometimes became anyway. That type of penalty, again, would have added a new dimension of strategy - a disabled robot can't recieve an impeding penalty, and what would have stopped an alliance from purposely disabling themselves across a single line at a strategic moment for the other alliance?

My point is, penalties of ANY kind will severely affect the playing style and evolution of any game - and I'm positive the GDC considers this when they're creating a new game.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

To have a rule without a penalty is rather useless. As many have seen with the robot rules and others that no penalty was expressed, they were not followed. To tell someone that they cannot speed does not stop them. Heck they speed even with penalties. People will always break the rules, penalties are a reinforcement of expectations.

People are saying it isn't fair if your team loses because of penalties to another team on your alliance. If that is so them maybe you shouldn't win when other teams on your alliance score points for your team. The alliances are teams. Teams work together to make the best results that they can. All for one and one for all. You cannot separate only parts of it out. We must always do our best to help other teams work within the alliance so that we can get the best results. I know that we can't pick our partners in Qualifying rounds but we can't always pick who we work with in our life outside of FIRST. Learning to accept that we are a team, working toward a common goal with the resources that we have available is sometimes a huge challenge. It is one that FIRST put there and that is all around in the workforce. How you respond tells what you are made of.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Eliminating Penalties would be nearly impossible in most FRC games. Most years there aren't too many, just the normal ones like ramming, pinning and tipping. Those are going to be required in any game so having a ten point penalty for those is understandable.

The Game specific ones are the ones that usually will decide matches. In '05 there was the loading zone violation, '06 had the corner goal incursion penalty, '07 there was the Chute/Wall penalty, and this year we had the hurdling interference and line crossing violations. IMO after driving or operating or coaching in all of these games except '05, I found that the basic penalties will rarely be broken after a teams first few matches and when they are they're broken on purpose or the team knows that they've broken it. Most of the Game specific ones are broken throughout the season though. Especially this year because of how tight the field gets and how fast the robots are.

I like the Idea by the Original Poster of having a time penalty. I think it would have been interesting to see brief disables during matches for certain penalties. Perhaps G22 could've been done that way this year if the system would've allowed for it. (I'm not sure if you can disable and then re-enable a robot in the same match with the current field). For example, my team crosses the lane divider backwards and we get disabled or frozen for 5 seconds. It'll still have a decent affect on scores because all of us know what can happen in 5 seconds. Who knows 5 seconds could be the that last second ramp, those 3 final poof balls, one more tetra or that final hurdle. -It's just a thought though :D

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

FIRST has plenty of rules without penalties. For instance, your only allowed 4 CIMs on the robot. You can't slap an extra CIM on there in return for an extra 10 pt. penalty every match... That would be crazy...

I'm not saying they should design a game with NO penalties. I'm just saying they should design a game that doesn't RELY on penalties. If you go back and look at all the games you'll see that there have been plenty that didn't rely on penalties.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

I don't think that disabling penalized robots during the match or adding extra time would do anything because they would just get in the way of other robots that were not penalized. Adding time onto the end of the match would be too hard because it always takes time for the referees to count up the penalties at the end of the match, they would probably make mistakes if they were trying to do it during a match

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

In a perfect world, where all rule violations are blatantly obvious, this would work well. However, rule violations aren't always blatant. Adding in penalties after a match gives the referees time to discuss what they saw, and compare notes on the match.

Consider this scenario: One ref (Ref A) is responsible for watching the portion of the blue lane beyond the blue overpass, giving him/her a great view of the lane marker. The ref (Ref B) across the field, in the red homestretch, sees a robot cross back over the lane marker, and calls a penalty. Ref A sees the same thing, but notices that the robot never actually crossed all the way over the line to begin with, thus no penalty. With the disabling method you suggest, Ref B would have disabled the robot, even though the robot committed no penalty. The refs get harassed enough as it is, imagine how much worse it could get with this scenario.

The time that referees have to discuss things after a match is key to keeping the officiating accurate and consistent. That is probably why there are only a handful of rule violations that currently result in a robot being disabled (safety, touching a human, or coach touching the controls). The current disabling-violations are pretty blatant, so it's easy for a ref to call.

I do agree with you though, penalties were too common in this game. Part of that responsibility (if not most of it) lies with the teams though. I know of quite a few teams that went penalty free at regionals.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

You couldn't be more right.

Messing up your alliance and having them mad at you is even more incentive not to break the rules. It's just the way FIRST is, you have to work as a team and try as hard as you can to help your team and not mess them up.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Actually there is a penalty. If you have 5 CIM's then you can't compete. What tougher penalty is there?

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

I beg to differ. The penaly for the above infraction is to not get qualified (IE no inspection sticker) or a DQ if found later on. I see this as a far stricter penalty ;)

Now back to XaulZan11's initial post.

I agree that there were far too many penalties this year, but I do not blame the game or the rules. I, instead, lay the blame on the teams that did not take into consideration that those rules might be strictly enforced and built their robot without taking into account that not being able to completely control your robot might actually hurt your alliance.

In the 15 matchs that 1824 played in, we got 1 penalty (yeah a <G22>). Yet we lost many matches because our alliance partners got many (as many as 4:ahh: ).

The only issue I have with the penalties this year was that for some teams it was better if they didn't show up (scorewise). And that is just plain wrong.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

I'm not saying that different ways to penalize teams besides taking points away, will decrease the amount of penalities (disabling a robot right after it did something illegal probably will, however, as it punishes them right doing something wrong), but it will make the number of matches that APPEAR to be decided by penalties decrease. Instead of seeing a team cause 3 penalties for 30 points and saying 'well, if it wasn't for that team, we would have won', that team would be penalized by not being able to score/defend for a certain amount of time. Thus, it will be much harder to place blame and say 'that team cost us XX points'. While matches will still be determined be penalites, by punishing teams for penalities different ways, it will be more difficult to determine how much that team hurt you. It will also help my biggest frustration of seeing two alliance both play well and then see a 10 point penalty decide the match; instead of having the penalities 'hidden in the game' their contrabution won't APPEAR to have such an impact in deciding matchs.

I know that there are some problems with disabling a robot for some time during the match, but it was just an example. I'm sure the CD community can come up with different ways to penalize teams besides simply taking points away at the end of the match.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

You misunderstand me. I mean't a point penalty.

Teams that don't pass inspection are forced to go back and modify their robots so that they DO pass inspection. In other words they are FORCED to obey the rules. They can't incur penalties... Becuase if they were capable of incuring penalties they wouldn't be allowed to compete.


And if the teams are responsible for all the penalties than why wasn't this such a big deal last year?

Here's a simple experiment you can do. Do a CD search of all thread titles containing the word "penalties" or "penalty." Set the peramiters to any-date and older.

(The number corresponds to the number of threads)

2008: 13, 2007: 5, 2006: 7, 2005: 10, 2004: 2, 2003: 1, 2002: 1

So obvously penalties were a bigger issue to teams in the 05 and 08 games. There's a clear correlation between the game and the "penalty problems." That leads me to believe that the problem is not so much with the teams but with the games...

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

has anyone taken into account the overall scoring system throughout the scoring system... even though records take precidence over everything else... individual teams are ranked within tied records according to their average pts per game... unless ur team 1114 or are paired with 1114 penalties screw up everyones records fairly evenly...so it really comes down to maintaining your average points per game...

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

So, how do you propose making an inspection penalty for actions taken on the field? Your connection between inspection/robot penalties and game penalties is flawed at best.
There are really only a handful of rules that you could enforce in such a fashion (such as the 80" rule), but doing so would often eliminate a great deal of design flexibility (making it impossible to violate the 80" rule during inspection would eliminate most arm designs, as they had to raise above 80" to score, and if tipped over would violate the rule). It would be impossible to eliminate the possibility for line violations or hurdler interference during inspection.

Penalties required a little more discipline to follow this year than some past ones, but we still the fault of teams. 1712 used two different drivers this year, and the only <G22> penalty we incurred was during hybrid. So long as you kept focused and attentive, penalties were fairly easy to avoid.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

I've never seen a team that couldn't compete because they were capable of getting a penalty on thew field because, well, every robot is capable of getting almost any penalty on the field. (80" is the only one that is Dependent on robot construction) so basically If your robot can move, it can get a penalty...

The only penalty an Inspector can look for is the 80" rule. And that is only applicable in normal gameplay. I'd have to say just about every hurdler with an arm or elevator could violate that rule anyways if they were tipped.

IMO I think a lot of people are just upset with the penalties this year because they cost a lot of teams, including mine, matches. But look at Major League sports, they have penalties every game that decide a game. Moving 5 yards in football, scoring on a powerplay in hockey, a penalty shot in Basketball; every sport has them but they just get used to them.

My major complaint with penalties this year wasn't the penalties themselves but, the way they were called. In any sport a penalty is up to interpretation but, I watch some regionals call G22 by having a Millimeter of your 'bot cross the line and others where you have to almost go halfway across. So if the penalties were scored more consistently from regional to regional then I wouldn't have a problem...

Just my 2 cents.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...hlight=defense

That is not a requirement of the game - you are free to travel in whichever direction you choose within a quadrant.

Again...

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...hlight=defense
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...hlight=defense
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...hlight=defense
ad infinitum

I can most assuredly tell you that playing defense is possible without obtaining an absurdly ginormous quantity of penalties. We chose this strategy in Atlanta and received a total of 2 penalties the entire event. Both were interference while hurdling. One was deserved; the other was a result of an opposing bot pushing their partner's hurdling bot into us while we were attempting to navigate around the hurdling process - the refs missed that one. It happens.

I am sure many others played D this year while keeping the penalties to a minimum.

All in all, I agree that while an abnormally high number of matches this year were decided by penalties, and that put a damper on the "fan friendliness" of the competition, penalties are both necessary "evils" and something teams can avoid with proper training, practice, and execution.

I do like the modification of G22 to require a more "blatant" clockwise move across the line in order for the penalty to occur.


http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...hlight=defense
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...hlight=defense
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...hlight=defense
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...hlight=defense
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...hlight=defense
ad infinitum

There is a fine line between encouraging teams who are not as "capable" as others to step outside their comfort zone and try new robot designs and having offensive teams offer up haughty, harsh criticisms of those simple, annoyingly effective robots who choose to play the game in a different but still legal manner than the majority of FRC teams. Then there are those bots who can play the game numerous ways and would like to retain the freedom to choose the style of gameplay they wish to employ for a given match....

There is a balance to be struck between eliminating all penalties, inviting havoc and chaos on the playing field, and having so many strict penalties in the rulebook that not even the 100% offensive bots (the ones who purportedly "play the game the right way") can escape them when they're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

I will agree that <G22> penalties were easy to incur this year. I think that until the fields were set up in arena lighting settings, the GDC didn't realize the effect of reflections off the center barrier. However, there were a number of <G22> penalties right in front of the driver stations, and at the finish lines. Those should have been preventable.

All the other penalties, in my opinion, were totally avoidable. Because of the mandatory bumper rule, more robot-to-robot contact within the bumper zone was allowed. <G37> and <G42> were there to reduce contact which would be unfair, either outside the bumper zone or while hurdling.

And there were far too many teams that didn't understand penalties or other aspects of the rules.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

i dont know about some of you but i do like some penalties but i really do agree with you on the matches being decided by penalties and i think that some of them should be more severe, for all of you that were at the buckeye regional you know why. i am one of the drivers for team 1008 and the way my alliance was made for the finals matches our robot was the only one that could hurdle. we lost our first match because of some plain bad luck, the second we dominated with a score of like 80 to 40 or something like that. the third match we were hurdling and a bot from the other alliance on purpose hits us from the back and pushes us up onto the overpass and got us stuck, we were impeding in no way there were 2 lanes open and the bot that pushed us had stopped and waited for us to let go of the ball so they wouldnt be hitting the hurdler. but in my opinion it was extremely against gracious professionalisms and we ended up losing that match and a chance to advance because of it. they were given a 10 pnt penalty but our alliance had to give ourselves a going back across the line penalty to get our bot down. we finally did but with not enough time to spare to do anything.

in my opinion there should be less penalties for dumb little thing but the bid things that actually affect matches should be of a higher cost to the fouling team

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Perfect world... It's kind of hard to tell what does/doesn't affect a match in realtime.

So here's what I suggest. Someone go to the Game Design threads and suggest different penalties. I think it technically possible to enter individual team penalties, realtime. I also think that the refs have a hard enough job as it is.

The thing is, the points/penalties relation is what affects the game.
Aye, there is a correlation. It's not exactly what you think. 2002: 10 points, move a goal/robot and you get them back. Same in 2003 and 2004. 2006, shoot a few balls or put two robots on the ramp, 2007, same general idea. OK so far? Good, because here's the correlation.

In 2005, touching a robot in a particular area of the field was 30 points. Many matches had that as the winning score! In contrast, 10 points was 3 tetras, or 1 row, or 3 robots behind the home line, all of which were pretty tough to do and keep--and 10 points was a relatively minor penalty! Follow me so far? The penalty was out of proportion. 2008, one penalty for a very minor infraction meant one lap, with hurdle, to undo, plus keeping opponents at bay. Again, out of proportion to the damage.

So it's not the number of penalties, it's the proportion to the score that's the issue. If the GDC gets it right, there are fewer complaints. If they don't, the refs get badmouthed, the GDC is blamed, etc.

And then there's the other thing... It really helps to just play the game and try to avoid penalties.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

I don't like to see a match decided simply on penalties. More often than I would like to count, I witnessed matches where more than 80 points in penalties were assessed between the two alliances. I know the value of penalties in keeping the game played as intended but G22's were assessed when the team was unable to correct for them. With the reflections off the center divider, lighting, and parallax errors, most drivers would not be able to see if the robot bumper crossed the plane on the far side of the field. If they were pushing against another robot at that crucial point, it was not possible for a driver in either the center or left driver station to determine where the plane was in relation to their robot.
Rules and penalties are a difficult thing to design as they require taking into account the game, the participants and the audience.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

True enough, and I'll leave the discussion of the relative merits of offense and defense to the many threads that you referenced.

This was the main point I was hoping to get across. If you don't like the penalties... don't break the rules. Yes, that was occasionally difficult to do this year, regardless of whether you were playing offense or defense, but if the penalties were not significant and match-deciding then there would not be much incentive to pay attention to them, would there?

My criticism is for teams that did not make sufficient effort to avoid penalties (especially if they then complained about there being too many penalties!) Teams that did not make an effort to avoid penalties do not fit the category of "effective", regardless of whether they play offense or defense.

If my comments were construed as a criticism of defensive machines and stragegies in general -- and I could see how they could have been -- then my apologies. It did seem, however, that many penalties were called as a result of defense, played poorly. I observed fewer penalties called as result of offense being played poorly. One way teams could avoid penalties was to simply focus on going counter-clockwise as fast as they could and staying away from opponents attempting to hurdle. In other words... attempting to score was an effective strategy to reduce the risk of penalties.

Jason

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

You didn't think your argument out very well. The penalities are there to stop behavior that the game designers don't want to happen. If I remember the details of the 2005 game correctly that penalty was a safety issue which should be a pretty strict penalty in my opinion. In 2008 game the penalty was the minimum amount that they could give before the penalty becomes utterly useless. The game designers did not want people backing up to hurdle and then continue on.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

In my mind, the biggest issue with penalties is when they are used to enforce gameplay. The simplest and best games are the ones where penalties are not needed to make sure that teams play the game "the right way". In an ideal world, the only penalties needed will be ones like high-speed ramming and pinning - the old standbys that show up every year - and those designed with safety in mind. The ones that are used to regulate a style of play (i.e. this year's G22) are inevitably the ones that end up causing pain and frustration to teams, and lead to numerous matches being decided on penalties.

It's by no means an easy task to design a game that doesn't need penalties to be played right - I've faced the same problem with other competitions in the past - but when you can do it right, it makes for a much more enjoyable experience for the competitors, referees, and spectators.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Explain to me how every single other game on the face of the earth does this without a problem. Technically, they don't. All of the major sports in the world have the same problems that FIRST does. What they make up for it is that they are constantly revising the same set of rules which is never going to happen unless FIRST stays with a specific game.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Granted. But you miss the point. The point was the reasons people complain, namely the proportion of penalty points to points scored.

In 2005, 30 points was way too much or way too little, even for a safety issue. If it's a safety issue, disable/DQ should be the way to go, to keep the game safe. That has less of an effect on the game outcome and quite possibly only affects the team that committed the violation. Point penalty...30 points was, as I said, close to WINNING scores that year, at least in qual matches. So it's way too high, because that's 2 rows that don't share a tetra, or 10 tetras not in a row(and that's almost more than the best individual robots could score in one match), or whatever other scoring you like. It's either too low (safety) or too high (points).

In 2008, I'm going to have to disagree. One hurdle with line crossing was 10 points. Not many teams could do more than 3-4, and many could only do laps of herd, which gave 2-4 points each in maybe 10 laps. So it's a pretty significant chunk of scoring gone because you broke the plane inadvertently. I think they could have gone a little lower, but that's just me. See, you don't get an advantage from going backwards a tiny bit, and if you go backwards to hurdle, it's blatantly obvious. So a lot of teams were penalized for doing something that gave no advantage and had no safety considerations. (Different from 2005, where safety and defensive advantage were both on the line.)

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

And ALL of the major sports have the same sets of rules year to year, and only ONE gives point penalties in any way, shape or form. NONE of the other major sports has the same problems. What's the biggest recent rule change in football, the facemask penalty? The biggest one that really affected the game, the forward pass, was what, 60-70 years ago or more?

Now, what's the biggest rule change in FIRST? The game. When? Every January. Not like major sports at all.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

No they don't. I just double checked that.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Which one doesn't, and where did you get the information?

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Only one gives points? which one?
Basketball gives a free throw which is possible points
Hocky gives a penalty shot which is a possible point
Soccer gives a penalty shot which gives a possible point
Baseball can award extra bases which could add points
Only football does NOT give the oppertunity for scoring because of penalties and none give points outright.



You mean like baseballs rule about the order of the bases you need to run (enforces the "right way to run the bases)?
Or Hockeys offsides (so players cannot stay on the opposing side of the ice)?
Or soccers offsides (so players cannot stay on the opposing side of the ice)?
Or basketballs 25 second clock (hurries the game)?
Or footballs formation rules (Forces a standard way of playing)?


All sports have rules to enforce gameplay, just as FIRST does.

I know people don't like penalties, but without consequences (re:Penalties) there is no incentive to follow the rules.

I also understand that some believe that the penalty is too harsh, but the fact is that everyone knew the rules from day 1 (Kickoff). As such you should have planned accordingly, or changed what you were doing at the event to minimize or eliminate those penalties. The "problem with penalties" is not the game, nor the penalties ... it's those that could not (or would not) adjust to how the calls are being made (much like a pitcher needs to adjust to a strikezone dispite that it is clearly defined).

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

You are both right. The rules in major sports very rarely change, but it is not uncommon that they may tweak the rules couple of years.

There seem to be a lot of complaints about penalties and how proffessional sports don't have that problem. Whether they have the problem or not FIRST is way more fun and way more educational than any sport, and in my mind that is all that counts.

A bad day at FIRST is better than a good day anywhere else.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Golf. Lose a stroke for going out of bounds or in the water.

The other sports don't give penalties, they give chances to score to the opponents. (And it's pretty rare for a penalty kick in soccer, direct or indirect. It's usually a free kick to a teammate.)

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Golf is a sport ?!?

I thought it was an exercise in frustration :P

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

If poker is a sport, then I would assume that golf (which at least involves walking) is one as well.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

hmmm... After reading this thread again it seems to me that the "problem penalties," or should I say the most frustrating ones, have been those that were very easy to incur. Most of these, like the bumping in 2005, the "zones" in 2006, and G22 in 2008, involved the drive train entering "zones" or making contact with other robots at certian times.

Might it be fair to conclude that the GDC should avoid these types of penalties, or perhaps re-word them to penalize other robot functions?

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

I have been watching this thread with some interest. It is an intriguing discussion. But I do feel the need to jump in here for a moment. I would suggest that you might want to think through the wording of the above statement carefully. I would posit that it is incorrect for you to "conclude that the GDC should" do anything. It may be proper and appropriate for you to "conclude that we suggest to the GDC that" they consider these ideas. You must be aware that you have not constrained yourselves to all the restrictions and requirements that must be considered when designing a game for FIRST/FRC. The desires, interpretations, and considerations expressed herein are (for the most part) well reasoned and constructive comments. However, they are (for the most part) delivered from one particular viewpoint: that of a team participating in the competition. They (for the most part) do not incorporate the constraints or limitations imposed on the design of the game by the FIRST Board Of Directors, the event managers, the venues, the FIRST organization, the Founders, the Regional Directors, the liability lawyers, the IP sources, the KOP suppliers, the media interests, the great folks on the FIRST staff, the developers, the international partners, the financial officers, etc., etc., etc.

All of these groups levy requirements on the design of the game. Many of them are mutually exclusive. Frequently, we get constraints from within the same group that may conflict with one of their own previous requirements. Very few of them have been considered in the preceding discussion in this thread. It is only after you are aware of ALL these requirements, and can find a way to satisfy all of them (or fail to satisfy all of them equally, which is the more common reality) that you can conclude what should be incorporated into the game design.

Several channels have been established to gather game suggestions, desirements and requirements from the teams. They include the threads in the FRC Game Design forum on DC, the team forums, and the direct e-mail channels, to mention only a few. Please use them to let FIRST and the GDC know your CONSTRUCTIVE comments, feedback, ideas, and desires. I can guarantee that every one of them will be read and considered. But please be aware that just because it is read and considered does not mean that it will be incorporated into a future game. What appears to be a reasonable idea from the viewpoint of a team may be, unbeknownst to you, in direct conflict with some other hard requirement established by another part of FIRST.

-dave



.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Perhaps I'm biased, but I thought FIRST Overdrive was the best game we've had in years, partly because of certain rules and penalties. In specific, the hurdler interference rule really changed the way the game was played this season. Teams could design a robot to score points and be offensive, and know that they would be free of interference while trying to score. To me this is a very good thing. In the same way that you can't touch a basketball player while he's shooting, or a wide receiver while the ball is in the air, robots were free of contact while hurdling. At the Greater Toronto Regional, we saw teams who usually never score with any degree of effectiveness become offensive threats, since they were no longer subject to overt contact while trying to score. Teams could finally showcase the creations that they had worked so hard to build.

In terms of G22 being to punitive of a penalty, I'm going to have to disagree. FIRST Overdrive would not have worked as a game if teams didn't move around the track in one direction. G22 needed to be a harsh penalty to ensure teams didn't intentionally violate the rule to gain an advantage. Unfortunately, it did punish teams who accidentally broke the rule, even in the slightest amounts. To me the positive of keeping FIRST Overdrive as a flowing offensive game, outweighed the negative of those painful G22 calls.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

You couldn't be more right with either of those statemants. G22 was a necessary penalty. I've seen many teams complain when they lost because of penalties. It isn't difficult to stop youself from going over the line backwards, so if you lose one match because of penalties you just be careful the next match and it shouldn't happen much in the future. My team had a swere drive that was fairly hard to control and we still very rarel had G22 violations. It is just a matter of the GDC wanting the game to be played a certain way and putting penalties in place to ensure that it is played that way. If Overdrive was much different that it is it probably wouldn't be as good.

I also agree that Overdrive is one of, if not the best, game FIRST has had. I am perfectly happy with the direction the games have been heading in the past few years. From my prospective the games keep getting better. I hope people posting on this thread are not discouraging the GDC from creating games the way they have been. People are so quick to criticize but not so quick to compliment. Making suggestions about what the GDC does seems out of place to me. Every year they make a great game and all people do is telll them what to do or criticize them. I would like to say thank you to the GDC and compliment them on another awsome game.

The GDC must know that the majority appreciates what they do, But it seems that people don't take the time to say what a great job they did.

I'm not saying discussions like this are bad but I feel like it has gone too far.