Petition: Lower technical foul values to make this game better

[billylo]

The 50-pt value of technical fouls are very influential in this year's game. Many of you have voiced your concerns.

So, I did some math homework tonight to assess the situation. Here are my observations:

1. We have played 49 regional final matches so far. Average score in the finals is 106 pts (before fouls). 29 of these matches (59%) were decided by less than 50 pts. In other words, one technical foul (calls or non-calls) would have swung the outcome of these very important matches.

2. Most of the G40s called were inconsequential (e.g. human players over-stretching their arms a little bit.) These are very hard for referees to judge reliably. [I haven't seen one consequential G40 yet. If you have, please comment below. Thx.]

3. In week 1, alliances who were penalized by technical fouls may not know which team or which play caused the penalty, making it very difficult for them to adjust.

If you feel the same way as I do (or differently), please comment below.
(Yes for support, No for no support; either way, feel free to elaborate.)

FIRST is about encouraging students to pick up STEM. I believe this game could do a better job at that by adjusting to actual plays. The finals would be even more thrilling and engaging.

Thanks for your help.

EDIT: -- It's week 2 only, and rules do change to gain clarity and effectiveness in achieving the goals. GDC cannot possibly predict the impact of penalties perfectly every year before the build season starts. In other words, it's not too late.

[orangemoore]

As much as I would like to see the point value for a technical foul to go down, there is a point where we can't always get what we want. If we were able to complain about a rule enough to change it there really wouldn't be a point in having rules.

I think that we should all try to get used to it with the 5 weeks of competition left and try to make the best of it.

[Tyler2517]

I think that it should stay the same. The rules were released with the fouls/point's in it. Teams should have built robots that did not break these rules. In the case of G40 its a safety thing more then any thing else and should be followed regardless of the intent of the contact.
It was a design constraint from the very start, or at the very least the drives should know how to not break the rules.

[JohnFogarty]

No.

[BigJ]

I see a lot of people (not necessarily this OP) talking about how it is "impossible to make up 50 points". This may be true - catching up the equivalent of a 3-assist-and-truss-high-goal is not easy. Defense this year makes it harder.

In 2013 a tech foul was roughly equivalent to 7 discs. 7 discs weren't a lot by the end of the year -- but wait. Discs were a capped resource. It could have been literally impossible to recover from a technical foul last year, if both the alliances were scoring all frisbees and all climbing to 30. Should the value have been reduced last year?

Same question applies to 2011 and penalties.

[billylo]

The core reason for me taking the time to analyze this:

Would this change improve this game's ability to achieve FIRST's goal of increasing high-school students interest in STEM?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Re team's ability to recover from a 50-pt foul? The statistics for the finals is: 41% yes, 59% no.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I do not know if I'm for changing the rules this year that is a tricky subject since teams have spent a long time designing for these rules.

I'm definitely for FIRST doing a better job with game design in the future, the weights on these penalties and the pressure they put on the referees doesn't allow our sport to be as compelling as it could be.

The refs in FRC have one of the hardest jobs, because in most years it is nearly impossible to be completely correct all the time because the rules and demands of the position don't allow you to be. The field is too large and you're always going to miss something that according to the rules has to be called a penalty even if it has no effect on the outcome of the match.

[Jon Stratis]

Having just gotten back from an event, a few thoughts... In some cases, a 50-pt foul is completely appropriate. Looking at a single elimination match this afternoon in which there were two technical fouls called (one on each alliance), the penalty was appropriate for the action that caused it. The first was a G28, in which a full speed collision, combined with contact inside the frame perimeter, resulting in a part breaking and a robot's radio dangling on the field, putting that robot out of commission for the entire match. The second was for a G30, in which a robot tipped another robot, paused, then continued pushing until the other robot was completely down, putting it out of commission for the entire match.

These matches were typically around 100 points, and loosing an alliance partner significantly decreases a team's potential total (it eliminates an assist from every subsequent cycle and forces the alliance into a 3v2 situation, putting them at a disadvantage both offensively and defensively). A 50 point penalty, IMO, is entirely appropriate.

On the other hand, some penalties do seem to be more than they're really worth. For example, receiving a technical foul for accidentally herding the other alliance's ball for a few seconds (G12).

As for G40, as was specifically mentioned here... I personally see it as a safety issue, and as such deserves a strict penalty. I don't think there was a single G40 called in the LSR elimination matches this weekend, though - FIRST's update last week really seemed to make sense, the refs were calling it appropriately, and over the day thursday and friday teams learned how to avoid it.

And for those wondering, I found the LSR elimination matches to be some of the most entertaining, suspenseful, and exciting matches I've ever seen in my 8 years of doing FIRST. This really did turn out to be a great game.

[BrendanB]

I believe that for the technical fouls the hard point value of 50 points is appropriate however it is the slight/inconsequential violations that are ruining the game.

[David8696]

More discussion of a similar issue:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=1#post1355715

[JohnSchneider]

G40 is the equivalent of an offsides in football giving 7 points to the other team.

Would you even consider scoring in football to be a good indicator of performance at that point?

[billylo]

A little more thoughts:

It's more fun to see engaged students focusing on scoring, playing great D; rather than them focusing on avoiding big fouls.

Yes, safety should be high priority. No doubt. It's always a balancing act. Keep the discussion going!

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

G40 is the equivalent of an offsides in football giving 7 points to the other team.

Would you even consider scoring in football to be a good indicator of performance at that point?

The intent of the rule is so people don't get their arm ripped off when they get snagged by a robot intake

It is hard to say that a similar hazard exists from an off sides in football

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296

The intent of the rule is so people don't get their arm ripped off when they get snagged by a robot intake

It is hard to say that a similar hazard exists from an off sides in football

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Teams/students are consistently around operating robots on the practice and learning to work safely near machines is part of being on an FRC team. The rule could be "don't get your hand/arm near a robot and don't leave in the field for too long" and it would be much more enforceable and just as safe. If you've been in FRC for any reasonable length of time you have probably been hit by a robot and you probably weren't injured. I am all for safety but 50 points for pointing too enthusiastically with no robots around is extreme.

Again the rules are the way they are written this year, but they should be looked at closely and drastically improved in future years.

[scaryone]

No,
learn the rules, understand the system, deal with it like everyone else has to. BTW not trying to sound coarse.