Where Logomotion is going...

[GGCO]

While my memories of the 2011 Niles District event in Michigan are still fresh, I thought I'd share a few thoughts about how Logomotion is going to be played in the near future. These ideas are solely my opinion and are based on my personal observations as our team's primary driver.

1. Holy penalties batman!
* I understand the refs are just doing their job, but my problem is with the rules
At Niles, it didn't seem that teams were playing more sloppy than usual (although I'll be the first to admit it wasn't as intense as an event like GVSU last week), but there seemed to be more penalties because the refs were much more strict on calling them.

An example would be towards Saturday, the refs all of a sudden penalized teams for pushing other teams into their zones. We had never experienced this before, even in the finals at GVSU where we played aggressive defense, and I am kind of wondering why all of a sudden this is changing.

Lane violations are STILL a HUGE problem. I'm honestly surprised FIRST hasn't lightened up on these rules. Like they did last year with the rules about balls getting caught under the robot. I've rarely seen a robot bump another robot while they were in their own lane, but the majority of these penalties occur when opponents aren't anywhere near the lane and the robot who is penalized just brushed the tape. In fact, refs even call a penalty when the robot's bumper breaks the outer most plane of the tape, but doesn't even go into the lane at all!

I understand these are the literal rules, but my word they're WAY too strict. FIRST needs to stop creating these excessive penalties to get teams to play the game how THEY want it to be played. If FIRST wants to discourage defense, then they need to design a game around that - or not have alliances. We'll see how that works. *cough* 2001 *cough*

2. Common household lightswitches
Earlier on Saturday, we had our minibot inspected. We were informed of several "concerns". Mainly, the fact that our minibot used two switches that weren't the kind you'd find on the wall of your house. One of the switches we used came in the Tetrix kit we received, and the other we bought from a hardware store. The inspector argued that if he followed the literal wording of the rules and followed what the GDC publically posted on the FIRST forums, then our minibot would have been illegal. But he allowed us to use it anyways. Cool?

What I'm taking away from this is that once teams get to states, they're going to find out that (if this inspector is correct) their minibots are illegal and that's going to cause a lot of teams a LOT of grief. I think FIRST needs to clarify this in a team update ASAP.


Anyone have anything else they'd like to add?

[HarveyAce]

Rules are Rules, and nothing anybody does can change them. the best advice i can give is learn the rules, and put a focus on you drive team about not getting penalties. We stayed penalty free all throughout Peachtree, which was really hard to do, but we focused on doing it and did, and it helped out our alliances a lot. complaining about the rules, even though they may seem too strict, isn't going to change anything. Just train and practice all you can!

Just my 2 cents

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by GGCO

2. Common household lightswitches
Earlier on Saturday, we had our minibot inspected. We were informed of several "concerns". Mainly, the fact that our minibot used two switches that weren't the kind you'd find on the wall of your house. One of the switches we used came in the Tetrix kit we received, and the other we bought from a hardware store. The inspector argued that if he followed the literal wording of the rules and followed what the GDC publically posted on the FIRST forums, then our minibot would have been illegal. But he allowed us to use it anyways. Cool?

They removed the language about the whole "wall mounting" thing in update 12 if I remember correctly. What seems to be the rule of thumb right now is: if you can prove it is used to turn off a residential right of some sort it is a legal switch.

[donnie99]

I agree that FIRST is being too strict, we had a first match were we had a tube over the lane, and were penalized, but the rule even says thatbif we don't touch anything in the lane, we are fine. I think FIRST should clear this up a little. I also think that first should consider what happens when a dead robot is in a violation, because the team can't do anything to fix the problem, so they shouldn't be penalized, these problems should be cleared up before week 5 events are messed up with a mid competition update.

[Bryan Herbst]

I definitely agree that Logomotion has been a penalty-heavy game.

I don't agree that lightening up on the rules is a good plan of action. That would be a dangerous precedent to set. Plus, the scores have been high enough that a penalty here and there shouldn't mean the end of a team's finals hopes.

As for the Minibot- this one doesn't really have any leeway. The rules are very explicit as to what is and isn't aloud on the minibots. I could see some confusion in the wording of the switch rule vs. the Tetrix parts rule, but in my (completely unofficial) opinion, the Tetrix allowance (<R92A>) would trump the switch rule (<R92N>). If the other switch isn't a limit switch or a "common household light switch," then it is pretty clearly not allowed.

Do you have a picture or a better description of this switch?

[donnie99]

Originally Posted by Tanis

I definitely agree that Logomotion has been a penalty-heavy game.

I don't agree that lightening up on the rules is a good plan of action. That would be a dangerous precedent to set. Plus, the scores have been high enough that a penalty here and there shouldn't mean the end of a team's finals hopes.

As for the Minibot- this one doesn't really have any leeway. The rules are very explicit as to what is and isn't aloud on the minibots. I could see some confusion in the wording of the switch rule vs. the Tetrix parts rule, but in my (completely unofficial) opinion, the Tetrix allowance (<R92A>) would trump the switch rule (<R92N>). If the other switch isn't a limit switch or a "common household light switch," then it is pretty clearly not allowed.

Do you have a picture or a better description of this switch?

The only part of this, is that some of penalties, like touching a tower, or pushing a robot into an opponents zone, which result in red card, are sometimes tricky. Our robot died touching a tower, and we could not get it off, so should we be penalized, it's stuff like that which needs to be cleared up, and it's not really loosening up, it's clarifying problems.

[clayman]

Although I do remember that the switches in question were slightly legalized, it is possible to get the toggling fuctionality that most teams are looking for with two wall switches in tandem - although it wouldn't be the lightest thing. Last resort option

[MagiChau]

Huh, teams can't be called for pushing other robots into zones. Its a G61 exception. The zone ruling is pretty strict though. The outer edge of the tape is the boundary. If you obviously crossed part of the tape you get nailed with a penalty.

[donnie99]

Originally Posted by MagiChau

Huh, teams can't be called for pushing other robots into zones. Its a G61 exception. The zone ruling is pretty strict though. The outer edge of the tape is the boundary. If you obviously crossed part of the tape you get nailed with a penalty.

The team that pushes them in gets a card for it, we got a yellow, but we were carrying one so it became a red, the first was from dying against the tower

[MagiChau]

Originally Posted by donnie99

The team that pushes them in gets a card for it, we got a yellow, but we were carrying one so it became a red, the first was from dying against the tower

Huh sounded like the referees ruled that it was a strategy to purposely give the other alliance penalties. I just reread the manual shows that exception to the exception of G61 applying to G33 & G32. Forgot that the G61 exception isn't absolute.

[donnie99]

Originally Posted by MagiChau

Huh sounded like the referees ruled that it was a strategy to purposely give the other alliance penalties. I just reread the manual shows that exception to the exception of G61 applying to G33 & G32. Forgot that the G61 exception isn't absolute.

Yea, but it means that teams cant force u into penalties, in the case of pushing a robot into a lane, it should be nothing because it is forcing a penalty, but it cant happen, so why should anyone get penalized, they already got rid of the penalty, that's just what I think it should be, cuz it's removing a penalty from one side and giving it to the other

[MagiChau]

Originally Posted by donnie99

Yea, but it means that teams cant force u into penalties, in the case of pushing a robot into a lane, it should be nothing because it is forcing a penalty, but it cant happen, so why should anyone get penalized, they already got rid of the penalty, that's just what I think it should be, cuz it's removing a penalty from one side and giving it to the other

I really wonder what referees generally define as a strategy though. If it looks like the person isn't just pushing you out of his way I guess.

[Peyton Yeung]

I think the penalties are wise for the fact that they keep robots playing the game fairly. I dislike a few penalties though. For example at the Midwest regional we got a penalty because our bumper skirt touched the ground during a match. It's penalties like that that I feel are unnecessary.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Tubatroopa

I think the penalties are wise for the fact that they keep robots playing the game fairly. I dislike a few penalties though. For example at the Midwest regional we got a penalty because our bumper skirt touched the ground during a match. It's penalties like that that I feel are unnecessary.

It's a common penalty that has been around since bumpers have been around. The bumper skirt seems to attract that kind of penalty because it hangs loosely and has even been pulled off by some robots when caught up in the wheels and teams hit the e-stop to keep the material from getting tangled up in the robot.

[GGCO]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

It's a common penalty that has been around since bumpers have been around. The bumper skirt seems to attract that kind of penalty because it hangs loosely and has even been pulled off by some robots when caught up in the wheels and teams hit the e-stop to keep the material from getting tangled up in the robot.

Last year the refs seemed to be much more lenient about these rules.