G40 change?

[Jhultink]

G40
TEAMS may not extend any body part into the SAFETY ZONE during the MATCH.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL.

I'm just curious to see if anyone thinks G40 should be modified at all because of how often it is called and how many points are involved.

And do you think teams will correct for week 2?

[Jonathan Norris]

Originally Posted by Jhultink

I'm just curious to see if anyone thinks G40 should be modified at all because of how often it is called and how many points are involved.

And do you think teams will correct for week 2?

I think a change should be made, but not to the penalty itself. Move the human player zones back a foot, and make the zone deeper.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Norris

I think a change should be made, but not to the penalty itself. Move the human player zones back a foot, and make the zone deeper.

While I'd be OK with this, I've been preaching all season to my team that this will be a 'killer' penalty and that many teams will incur it.

[Navid Shafa]

Auburn Mountainview
Match: Final-2

G40 and 100 total points in fouls swing the match. Going into a third match now...

[BrendanB]

I also agree the box should be moved back by 1 foot. Teams also need to make sure their human players KNOW THE RULES! So many teams just throw the HP into the position at the last second without much thought or in the heat of the moment they forget what they are doing (reaching too far).

I hope a long term solution is that the box ends 1 foot away from the field border.

In the meantime before each match the Human Players need a refresher on what they should and should NOT do.

[engunneer]

At Granite State District, there was yellow tape on the top of the safety barrier to mark the G40 line. I think it is clear where the line is, and the human needs to be smart enough not to cross it. Scouts are watching!

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Navid Shafa

Auburn Mountainview
Match: Final-2

G40 and 100 total points in fouls swing the match. Going into a third match now...

Note only 50 of those foul points were due to a G40.

In general the number of G40 penalties incurred and AMW seemed to go down as the event progressed.

[JosephC]

We need a solution besides moving the zones back a foot. Doing that would put the HPs directly in the way of the Field Reset people taking balls to the other side of the field at smaller events. There already wasn't enough room at Centerline.

[Navid Shafa]

Point values need to be changed. In case you haven't been convinced yet, Zondag said it best:

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

The Average OPR is less than one standard deviation above zero.
A single technical foul is worth more than 2 matches worth of average team contribution. This is completely out of scale with what is appropriate for penalty scaling.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Navid Shafa

Point values need to be changed. In case you haven't been convinced yet, Zondag said it best:

While I understand Jims statistics, The penalty points are that high because FIRST does not want the HP anywhere near the robots.

I say, teach your HP well ... and ensure that your alliance HPs know the rules as well. Scouts are watching

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

While I understand Jims statistics, The penalty points are that high because FIRST does not want the HP anywhere near the robots.

I say, teach your HP well ... and ensure that your alliance HPs know the rules as well. Scouts are watching

I don't want any HP to robot contact either. So many of these HP's know the rules though. It's easy to make this mistake even while paying close attention to your own actions. The point value is just too high...

[Ian Curtis]

The fact that there are lots of G40 fouls means that students are being exposed to a risk that FIRST wanted to avoid because it is potentially unsafe. Right now, students are putting themselves in an unsafe situation because they didn't read/understand the rules. After this happens, teams get penalties, match results change, students get upset, refs get a bad rap (they don't want to be deciding winners!), and generally nobody wins. We can continue proceeding this way, but if we do, we continue putting students at risk.

Something more fundamental has to change than just the points/foul. The risk level needs to be reassessed (which would justify adjusting the foul points), OR we need to remove students from a scenario in which they are at risk (move the HP stations back, for example).

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

Something more fundamental has to change than just the points/foul. The risk level needs to be reassessed (which would justify adjusting the foul points), OR we need to remove students from a scenario in which they are at risk (move the HP stations back, for example).

I absolutely agree with you. Safety is certainly at the top of everyone's list, but something fundamental does need to change.

I don't care what solution they pursue, but FIRST has to address this soon.

[Racer26]

You know, I'm just not that concerned about the safety aspect of the reason this rule exists. Students come into contact with an energized robot all the time in the pits and at home with little more than a pair of safety glasses (if that) to protect them.

A rule like this to prevent the outside chance of some incidental contact on the field? Way disproportionate to the actual risk.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Racer26

You know, I'm just not that concerned about the safety aspect of the reason this rule exists. Students come into contact with an energized robot all the time in the pits and at home with little more than a pair of safety glasses (if that) to protect them.

A rule like this to prevent the outside chance of some incidental contact on the field? Way disproportionate to the actual risk.

Just remember that the human player introducing the ball (and thus possibly coming into contact with the robot) may not be from the team that made the robot, and thus may not know all of the dangers presented.