Petition: Lower technical foul values to make this game better

[Nathan Streeter]

Having attended Granite State (week 1) as a team and having reffed UNH (week 2), I think there are some issues... but I honestly don't think G40 is one of them.

The only "issues" with G40 are that many teams just don't train their human players well enough. Honestly, most of the high-caliber teams get close to no G40 infractions... it's usually the teams that stuggle to field a working robot or hardly read the rules that consistently get G40s. G40 is serious - it's about safety and with humans that close to the field of such a violent, high-speed game putting hands in the field is serious! When the GDC relaxed G40 more this weekend to allow human hands up to the field barrier when a robot isn't nearby, I think they made it as lenient as it should be. Human Players just need to learn how to follow it!

That said, G26-1 bugs me... at both events I never saw it called on teams doing "chokehold" defense (what the rule was intended for)... every time I saw it called it was on a robot that was trying to inbound the ball. Teams shouldn't be penalized for accidental or non-strategic infractions... please change G26-1, FIRST! This was honestly a silly rule that we refs had to put a fair bit of energy into enforcing.

The fouls/tech-fouls are waaaay too high. Last year's game had similar scores to this year's (perhaps *slightly* lower)... and the fouls were 3 and 20. For some reason FIRST decided to up it to 20 and 50! I agree that 3 and 20 are on the low side, but 20 and 50 are overwhelmingly high! My recommendation: 10 and 30.

TL;DR... G40 is the team's problem; G26-1 is silly; make fouls 10 and 30 instead.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Yes.

What I don't understand about the "don't change it" arguments is you assume the 50p acts as an effective deterrent to crossing an invisible plane. If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. The penalty does not work. It's like saying jail time prevents crime. And for as many times this 50p foul has been called I again ask how many students were in actual danger and how many were hurt? It is obviously not a very good deterrent.

It's not about how many came close, or how many were hurt. This is FIRST saying "Do not do this" or you will lose.

It is an easily preventable foul. Teach your HPs to pay attention to what they are doing and you can prevent <G40> fouls.

Originally Posted by jman4747

Inconsequential violations of G40 should be a 20p. If you touch or almost touch a robot then 50p. And for the love of dozer, MOVE THE TAPE BOX BACK. If you want to be more safe make it harder to actually touch the robot. If the point actually is students not touching the robot in the match, make it harder to touch.

This isn't about cheating or unfair advantages. If the kid is a little too excited give him a warning.

It's not that easy. Some venue cannot move the HP box back 12". There's just not enough space. Literally.

... and we're not talking about cheating or unfair advantages, we're talking about rules that have been put forth as part of a competition. They are part of the challenge, and as annoying and unreasonable as they may (or may not) be, they are still part of the challenge.

[Matt_Boehm_329]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

we're talking about rules that have been put forth as part of a competition. They are part of the challenge, and as annoying and unreasonable as they may (or may not) be, they are still part of the challenge.

I think this accurately sums up my opinion on the situation. We have known the cost of tech fouls since kickoff. If they were changed now, the balance of the game would swing too far mid season. It's like saying halfway through football season: "Oh ok now you cant touch the QB" We would be playing a different game weeks 1-2 and 3-6

[sircedric4]

I could get my head around leaving the penalties but two things need to happen immediately.

The first is they have to improve the real time penalty score updating. If you dont know you are fouling you cannot correct. Both match 2 and match 3 of the Arkansas regional finals did not show any penalties on the scoreboard throughout the matches. The score at the end of the match indicated blue alliance wins. Field techs started to pull down the field after match 2. Referee deliberation on the sideline happened after the game buzzer and penalties were applied against the blue team giving enough points to the red team to win. This exact thing happened in the 3rd match. This gave the appearance that penalties were being made up after the fact to force a certain alliance to win. It gives the appearance of referee bias and is not healthy for inspiration or for FIRST. This is a side effect of subjective harsh penalties and is unacceptable without some change.

Here are videos of those two matches. Notice the score change at the end of the video:

Match 2: http://youtu.be/YA5JtkWG6QA
Match 3: http://youtu.be/J9nOrCgKn0Q


The second thing that needs to happen is to put either a physical barrier you can see or move back the human player boxes if safety is indeed the reason for G40. Right now the nebulous yellow tape plane is entirely too subjective for a consistent experience across all the regionals. Some refs are being too strict and others too lenient. It must be made consistent.

[Doc Wu]

I think one of the reasons some penalty values are that high is to prevent them from being made for a strategic reason.

For instance, when an opponent has possession of a ball with three assists in place, a desperate defender might decide it was worth the penalty if it's value were worth less.

Safety and consistency also weigh in. Safety needs to be strongly encouraged. If a human player got a 10 point penalty, they might get a word from their coach. When they get a 50 point penalty, they hear about it from the whole team.

Consistency is not having confusion on which fouls are worth how many points. I know, the scoring system takes care of most of it, but understanding the score in the stands is easier if they are all the same, not various amounts.

In any event, I've seen many penalty-free matches, so it must be working. I don't think changing now that competitions are underway would be appropriate.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by Matt_Boehm_329

I think this accurately sums up my opinion on the situation. We have known the cost of tech fouls since kickoff. If they were changed now, the balance of the game would swing too far mid season. It's like saying halfway through football season: "Oh ok now you cant touch the QB" We would be playing a different game weeks 1-2 and 3-6

I know "we" have known the cost of tech fouls since kickoff and how to avoid them as well as the potential risk of crossing this barrier. The point of this is people who don't. To many of whom will be more or less unknowingly putting themselves at risk with a foot of air protecting them. We can't ignore the issue because we know to be careful with it. We don't design cars without airbags because people generally know how not to crash. We shouldn't assume everyone is as knowledgeable about this barrier/rule/hazard.

[Keiko]

I think this was very intentional.

I don't see FIRST changing the values either.

This is a game that may not allow powerhouse teams to win every match they play. It's all dependant on their alliance partners. That's why this year the middle to low seeds have been making it farther in the eliminations in comparison to other years. It's also a year where its not so common for the first seed to pick the second seed.

You could argue that loosing due to penalties is discouraging to many teams. But what about the teams on the other side? The ones that are winning?

There are events where the same team always dominates. The creation of the wildcard is proof of that. For teams that may only get to compete in one regional per season, it can be very discouraging to loose year after year. That's discouraging for the students, and ultimately for many of them, to STEM. Winning a regional can make a huge difference for a team. It can kickstart a mediocre team to strive for excellence in future years. If this game is giving a chance for more teams to win, I would say thats a big plus.

On the other hand, teams that have already reached their peak, and are among some of the best, could find very discouraging to loose after all the work and time spent perfecting a robot to play a game which many think is flawed.

It looks to me like this game is giving more teams a chance to win. In a way, this game is levelling out the playing field. Walking into a regional in the past, you may have a good idea who's going to win. This year is the opposite. Its anyones game.

This is a game where your only as strong as your weakest link, unlike other games. It's different, and I believe that it was in the GDC's intentions to have it played this way.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by scaryone

Learn the rules, understand the system, deal with it like everyone else has to.

he GDC addressed the "pinkie" problem with their update last week. Students who grudgingly accept that they can lose a game by putting their hand in the arena, and thus will try to avoid the penalty (and the wrath of their alliance partners) are students who are NOT losing an arm to a fast-moving machine.

I work at a major chemical company. Safety is #1. Safety trumps everything. Always.

All we need is one roboteer injured at a match. It may not seem to be obvious but you, the roboteer is the most important thing. I think the penalties are harsh, but I'm not willing to exchange your safety for a better score.

G40 is harsh. Sorry. To be honest, I don't like robot competitions that the "human player" makes a difference. Robot drivers good, interaction in the game, not so much. But the rule is about safety. Deal with it. Or don't put a human player out.

[nlknauss]

I also disagree with the idea of changing the values of penalties. It would be unfair to the teams who've completed their competition season already and would probably change game play strategy. All rules having to do with human safety are good for me too. Our students can get seriously injured in a game like this and should think about their interactions with the field and the robots.

The penalty for possessing or controlling an opponent's ball to me is much like pass interference in football. The opportunity for a clean catch and possession by a robot must be allowed in order for this game to be played the way it was designed. If there was only one ball for both alliances to possess, I would understand the concern.

[sircedric4]

Originally Posted by Keiko

You could argue that loosing due to penalties is discouraging to many teams. But what about the teams on the other side? The ones that are winning?

There are events where the same team always dominates. The creation of the wildcard is proof of that. For teams that may only get to compete in one regional per season, it can be very discouraging to loose year after year. That's discouraging for the students, and ultimately for many of them, to STEM. Winning a regional can make a huge difference for a team. It can kickstart a mediocre team to strive for excellence in future years. If this game is giving a chance for more teams to win, I would say thats a big plus.

I dont want to follow this line of thought to its ultimate conclusion which is if you have nebulous enough penalties and make them harsh enough and allow no recourse, replay, or protest then you can simply have the referees choose who win. Yay!

This game already is developing that particular appearance and reputation but I find it extremely hard to believe that was FIRST's intention. I hope they will continue to listen to those in the trenches playing the games and improve the rules to have a equitable, consistent and ultimately safe and fun game. I personally feel they have a ways to go yet.

[Keiko]

Originally Posted by sircedric4

if you have nebulous enough penalties and make them harsh enough and allow no recourse, replay, or protest then you can simply have the referees choose who win. Yay!

If the penalties are called correctly, then refs aren't the ones choosing who wins, its the drivers and/or designers.

If we're talking about penalties that aren't being called properly, well thats different.

I attended both a week one and week two event and there was much improvement on penalties being called. I would hope that by week four or five, most penalties will be called correctly.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by sircedric4

The first is they have to improve the real time penalty score updating. If you dont know you are fouling you cannot correct. Both match 2 and match 3 of the Arkansas regional finals did not show any penalties on the scoreboard throughout the matches. The score at the end of the match indicated blue alliance wins.

If you had reffed at all this year, you would have known that it's pretty challenging for a ref to input a foul, while still calling all the other stuff they need to call. Often, it's easier to give a half-hearted attempt at calling the foul, and input it at the end, especially with all the other things you have to track. It takes a good 3-5 seconds to input a foul and get back to the scoring screen, not counting time to wave the flag (if you even have one), as well as call to the rest of the refs with what the call was, during which time someone could score a truss-and-catch or a high goal to end a cycle with 3 assists. Miss the latter call, and watch every team in that alliance scream at ya.

So if the ref who sees a foul is on "goal patrol", that is, ending the cycle when the ball scores, then their best option is often to radio the foul to the rest of the refs for signalling and input, particularly if the ball they're tracking is in their end of the field. They don't have flags at those stations (at least, at IE they didn't). Then you gotta check with the head ref at the end of the match to verify that somebody entered it (and get it fixed if it wasn't) and let the head ref know what exactly was called. That way maybe the announcer can announce the right penalties, teams can question, maybe make adjustments.



The one other thing: If you're trusting the realtime scoring, I pity ya. You haven't learned the first thing about FRC's realtime scoring: Don't EVER trust the score on the screen before the match is over and the final score is announced.

[brandon.cottrell]

Even though my team won our first regional ever because of a technical foul, I still strongly agree. It felt like we had the match that was supposed to exist (a 3rd final match) taken away from us. The enemy alliance surely didn't deserve such an anti-climatic defeat.

[billylo]

Originally Posted by Brandon1266

Even though my team won our first regional ever because of a technical foul, I still strongly agree. It felt like we had the match that was supposed to exist (a 3rd final match) taken away from us. The enemy alliance surely didn't deserve such an anti-climatic defeat.

GP in action! Thank you!

What if we borrow an idea from hockey? Since these fouls happen in teleop, if it happens, indicate to the offending alliance right away; and depending on the severity / safety implications, either one, two or all three driving teams have to step back behind the auton line for x number of seconds?

This emphasizes point must be scored and victories must be earned...

what do you think?

[sircedric4]

Originally Posted by EricH

If you had reffed at all this year, you would have known that it's pretty challenging for a ref to input a foul, while still calling all the other stuff they need to call. Often, it's easier to give a half-hearted attempt at calling the foul, and input it at the end, especially with all the other things you have to track. It takes a good 3-5 seconds to input a foul and get back to the scoring screen, not counting time to wave the flag (if you even have one), as well as call to the rest of the refs with what the call was, during which time someone could score a truss-and-catch or a high goal to end a cycle with 3 assists. Miss the latter call, and watch every team in that alliance scream at ya.

So if the ref who sees a foul is on "goal patrol", that is, ending the cycle when the ball scores, then their best option is often to radio the foul to the rest of the refs for signalling and input, particularly if the ball they're tracking is in their end of the field. They don't have flags at those stations (at least, at IE they didn't). Then you gotta check with the head ref at the end of the match to verify that somebody entered it (and get it fixed if it wasn't) and let the head ref know what exactly was called. That way maybe the announcer can announce the right penalties, teams can question, maybe make adjustments.


The one other thing: If you're trusting the realtime scoring, I pity ya. You haven't learned the first thing about FRC's realtime scoring: Don't EVER trust the score on the screen before the match is over and the final scre is announced.

So instead of improving the system, identifying the weak points and maybe getting the overworked refs some help I should just suck it up? I dont think so. I have been around FIRST enough to know the real time system hasnt always been reliable. I am pointing out weaknesses. I am hoping we can get rule changes to alleviate stresses on refs or more assistance for you guys. I am pushing to alleviate the appearances that you guys are what is controlling the score and not the robot and human players. Elimination or changing of game changing penalties is one approach in a multi-throng attact.

I am hoping FIRST will take these lessons to heart, will improve their systems and make this game better for everyone. There is no worse feeling then having a won regional taken back from you because the refs have to sit on the sideline and hold debates, except maybe the doubt that you might only have won because of penalties. This game's rule are the direct cause of this and should be fixed or if not fixed then the communication of the penalties should be fixed. No one else should have to deal with that same scenario again. We all want to inspire students, right?