IRI Rule Changes

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

I think we simply change the whole game.
We have all played open practice matches with lots of balls at events, it is crazy fun with good robots. Change the game to this format:

1. Get rid of Assists.
2. Get rid of the pedestal light.
3. Each Alliance can have up to 3 balls on the field at a time. Team in-bounders control this. Refs simply enforce. Way easier than watching and controlling a pedestal.
4. Ten points for trussing , ten points for catching, ten points for scoring high.

This would be super simple, super fast, and super cool. Defense would be much reduced because other members of alliance can continue to score during double teams. It would be awesome!

Did you forget to mention to 10 point bonus for any two-digit team from Michigan that wears yellow, and only has omni wheels on their drive?

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

I think we simply change the whole game.
We have all played open practice matches with lots of balls at events, it is crazy fun with good robots. Change the game to this format:

We all haven't. Many events didn't allow this

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank

I have two suggestions that would speed up the pace of the game, decrease the burden on referees and their subjective judgement, and eliminate the pain of being allied with a BLT, without fundamentally altering the spirit of the game:

1. Get rid of zones. If all three robots POSSESS a ball during a cycle anywhere on the field, that's three assists.

2. Change the definition of POSSESSION (for an alliance's own ball) to any contact with the ball where a partnering robot isn't also contacting the ball. The definition of POSSESSION of an opponent's ball would remain the same.

These are two great ideas I fully support. I always thought the zone requirement just made refereeing and playing harder. The game is so much less confusing if assists are "number of robots who interacted with the ball". And honestly, three assists in one zone is almost as much work as three assists in three zones anyway.

This actually opens up a lot more strategy options. Do you do a double inbound conga line and let one partner truss to hp and score? Do you do the "standard" inbound / truss / score 3 robot cycle? Do you do a "death cycle" where a downfield inbounder and scorer with rear pickup park permanently in front of a goal, ready to feed the ball into the goal from an HP? Lots more viable options this way.

I would also enjoy playing with Zondag's proposed rules. The "second" and "third" ball would need to be marked in some way (think white dots like Overdrive) to ensure no repeat trusses, but I'd have a ball playing that game.

[Ben Martin]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This actually opens up a lot more strategy options. Do you do a double inbound conga line and let one partner truss to hp and score? Do you do the "standard" inbound / truss / score 3 robot cycle? Do you do a "death cycle" where a downfield inbounder and scorer with rear pickup park permanently in front of a goal, ready to feed the ball into the goal from an HP? Lots more viable options this way.

You could do a lot with human players ricocheting the ball off robots to get assists as well. From the proposed possession rules, it may even be possible to ricochet a ball to get a truss? Or get catch points when a ball is thrown over the truss and ricochets off a partner before hitting the ground?

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank

1. Get rid of zones. If all three robots POSSESS a ball during a cycle anywhere on the field, that's three assists.

This, please this.

Fun fact about tracking possessions, if a robot gets a ball inbounded a ball in the red zone, drives fully through the white zone and into the blue zone, and deposits the ball into the blue low goal, the referee needs to press FIVE buttons on their tablet.

[Chris Hibner]

If Jim wants to go crazy and change the game completely, I have my own proposal in the complete opposite direction.

There is only one ball on the field ever, and there is a 20 second shot clock. All assist rules remain. If you put the ball on the floor and the other team steals it - it's now their possession. In other words, basically basketball with robots.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

These are two great ideas I fully support. I always thought the zone requirement just made refereeing and playing harder. The game is so much less confusing if assists are "number of robots who interacted with the ball". And honestly, three assists in one zone is almost as much work as three assists in three zones anyway.

I'm not sure - I could see back-to-back-to-back Rube Goldberg (or robot centipede, if you will....) type things where three bots mush together, feed the ball through all three cozied up together, and the last one trusses to HP and/or scores the ball. Kinda hokey. Kinda boring.

Perhaps up to two assists can occur in any zone in a cycle, instead of just one?

Or split the field in half, eliminating the white zone. You'd still mark off neutral colored lines to maintain an autonomous lineup reference. To get three assists, you need at least one assist to take place on each side of the truss per cycle.

[Chris Fultz]

these are pretty funny.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank

1. Get rid of zones. If all three robots POSSESS a ball during a cycle anywhere on the field, that's three assists.

Probably my favorite suggestion so far.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

I think we simply change the whole game.
We have all played open practice matches with lots of balls at events, it is crazy fun with good robots. Change the game to this format:

1. Get rid of Assists.
2. Get rid of the pedestal light.
3. Each Alliance can have up to 3 balls on the field at a time. Team in-bounders control this. Refs simply enforce. Way easier than watching and controlling a pedestal.
4. Ten points for trussing , ten points for catching, ten points for scoring high.

This would be super simple, super fast, and super cool. Defense would be much reduced because other members of alliance can continue to score during double teams. It would be awesome!

Speaking as a team with a low goal/assist bot, it would be awful for us.

[Yipyapper]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

I think we simply change the whole game.
We have all played open practice matches with lots of balls at events, it is crazy fun with good robots. Change the game to this format:

1. Get rid of Assists.
2. Get rid of the pedestal light.
3. Each Alliance can have up to 3 balls on the field at a time. Team in-bounders control this. Refs simply enforce. Way easier than watching and controlling a pedestal.
4. Ten points for trussing , ten points for catching, ten points for scoring high.

This would be super simple, super fast, and super cool. Defense would be much reduced because other members of alliance can continue to score during double teams. It would be awesome!

Maybe adding more ideas and thinking it out would make it even better, but I like this as a starting point.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

4. Ten points for trussing , ten points for catching, ten points for scoring high.

Would infinite trussing/catching be permitted? Cuz keeping track of which of the three balls on the field were trussed already in their cycle would be....problematic.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Speaking as a team with a low goal/assist bot, it would be awful for us.

Then let's make the low goal worth 10 points as well. Seriously.

[CTbiker105]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

If Jim wants to go crazy and change the game completely, I have my own proposal in the complete opposite direction.

There is only one ball on the field ever, and there is a 20 second shot clock. All assist rules remain. If you put the ball on the floor and the other team steals it - it's now their possession. In other words, basically basketball with robots.

I would have loved it if this was the game for the 2014 season, although it probably would have proven to be a lot more difficult for teams that got stuck with less-than-functional robots during quals.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

Then let's make the low goal worth 10 points as well. Seriously.

I think it's also time for the truss-hanging endgame we all know FIRST was planning.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

Then let's make the low goal worth 10 points as well. Seriously.

I'd do low goal 10 and high goal 15. You need to give some incentive for high goal scoring or it won't be worth the potential miss and loss of time. If its 10 & 10 the high goal would see little use unless its by teams like 33 who have a great running shot down field.