Yellow card / Red card usage at 2004 IRI

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

I would like to see the point penalties moved over to aggressive play. If you tip a team - 25 pts; if you ram them repeatedly - 10 pts; if you entangle - 10 pts; if you get more than X penalties (or perhaps more than Y penalty points), you're DQ'd. Obviously the point values used here are for illustration purposes only and would need to be thought of a little better.

I think it makes it much easier to call a penalty if the penalty fits the crime a little better. I like the football anaolgy: you're offsides - 5 yards; holding - 10 yards; late hit to the head - 15 yards. The current system in FIRST is: offsides - DQ&forfeit; holding - DQ&forfeit; late hit to the head - DQ&forfeit.

I'm strongly against point penalties for all but the smallest
infractions. Why? It encourages doing illegal things as a strategic
move. If intentional tipping was 25 points, it's a no brainer to tip
237 before they get on the bar. Even if it's 50 points, I'd still
rather have 237 on the ground, then keeping other people off the bar.
What about intentionally ramming 45 as they get ready to put the 2x
ball on a goal full of 15 balls. As long as you ram then 7 times or
less (and keep them from placing the ball) you've come out ahead.

Even if it was 100 points for an intentional tip, it wouldn't be that
hard for 2 good offensive teams to beat the 1 remaining team, where
they might not have been able to if both were there. If it were 200
points, you might as well DQ, the team.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by MrToast

I don't think only two cards should be used. I would proposed a Red, Yellow, and Black card. Black would be the least offensive, Red the most. A black card might be issued for excessive pushing, or dangerous behavior. A yellow card would be issued for repetition of violent behavior, and a red would be for violent behavior and/or excessive damage to other robots (such as partial or complete loss of robot functionality).

Each black card received would subtract 5 points from your alliance's score for the match, each yellow would subtract 10, and a red would subtract 15.

HOWEVER, a team the receives a red card would also be put on a blackball list, meaning that if they receive another red card (or two yellows or 4 blacks), then they would be DQ'd.

ALSO:
4 black cards = 1 yellow card
2 yellow cards = 1 red card
2 blacks and 1 yellow = 1 red

Advantages: A point reduction makes the threat of elimination (DQage?) that much more serious. It could have a negative impact on the standing of that team, which would be a fair penalty. This method also means that two penalites wouldn't be an automatic disqualification, which makes the refs jobs a bit easier. It allows for accidents.

Hope that makes sense...

Your last line sums up the problem with that. Even though it may make sense to you or me, an observer who doesnt know anything about FIRST wouldnt be able to take it in as quickly. Most people at least a vague idea about the yellow/red card system, and if they dont, it can be explained quickly to them. So basically, your way isnt quite simple enough. Interesting concept though.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

I'm strongly against point penalties for all but the smallest
infractions. Why? It encourages doing illegal things as a strategic
move. If intentional tipping was 25 points, it's a no brainer to tip
237 before they get on the bar. Even if it's 50 points, I'd still
rather have 237 on the ground, then keeping other people off the bar.
What about intentionally ramming 45 as they get ready to put the 2x
ball on a goal full of 15 balls. As long as you ram then 7 times or
less (and keep them from placing the ball) you've come out ahead.

Even if it was 100 points for an intentional tip, it wouldn't be that
hard for 2 good offensive teams to beat the 1 remaining team, where
they might not have been able to if both were there. If it were 200
points, you might as well DQ, the team.

I agree with what your saying, but I also partially agree with him in the fact that there should be some sort of severity between penalties. Whether it be certain penalties hurt you(and you alone) in your next match(you only get half the QPs from your next match of something) or purely take away QPs form your ranking, and lesser penalties only DQ you, I dunno. But we need something to seperate knocking over a team and ripping out a teams wiring.

[Ben Lauer]

I am strongy against a point penalty, and here is why....

Who remembers watching the webcast of the first FIRST regional this year? For all of Friday, if you scored 60 pts, it was basically an automatic win. At Nationals, a 60 would win maybe 6% of matches. So how could you set a point penalty system? At nationals the penatlies wouldn't mean as much, and that is where they are most important! Also, would the change the point penalties from year to year? I rarely saw a 100+ match in 2003 (stack attack); but this year, that was only two hanging bots!

A point system would be too confusing to inforce, and too confusing to change from week to week and year to year. There must be penalties that carry the same weight no matter what year, what week, what tournament.

-Ben

[Matt Adams]

I've seen a lot of really great ideas come out of this topic. I have a few of my own.

I noticed that a lot of people are trying to use a (seemingly obviously and accurate) comparison between sports and that of FIRST. I think there may be a few things to consider.

1. Athletic events tend to be longer, in many sports refs can take time to discuss between plays and see instant an replay.

2. FIRST has historically used a tournament format very different than that of sports (qualification and elimination rounds).

3. The "team" size in first is very unique since there are only two "players" per "team."

I agree with a lot of the principles with a card system... but I think there's a penalty that nobody here has metioned which should be used MUCH more frequently.

Anybody remember that disable switch?

How about this for a rule:
If you're not playing nice, then you don't play for the rest of the round.

Doesn't that seem fair?

Examples:
If you tip a robot, you're shut off.
If you're banging up against a robot destructively, you're shut off.

This rule could probably be coupled with that of the card system to avoid a kamikaze type playing style.

I'll admit that this will take swift action by one ref or nearly instant voting, but nevertheless, I think that this sort of penalty should be used more often in gameplay.

Just my two cents,

Matt

[ngreen]

Originally Posted by Matt Adams

I've seen a lot of really great ideas come out of this topic. I have a few of my own.

I noticed that a lot of people are trying to use a (seemingly obviously and accurate) comparison between sports and that of FIRST. I think there may be a few things to consider.

1. Athletic events tend to be longer, in many sports refs can take time to discuss between plays and see instant an replay.

2. FIRST has historically used a tournament format very different than that of sports (qualification and elimination rounds).

3. The "team" size in first is very unique since there are only two "players" per "team."

I agree with a lot of the principles with a card system... but I think there's a penalty that nobody here has metioned which should be used MUCH more frequently.

Anybody remember that disable switch?

How about this for a rule:
If you're not playing nice, then you don't play for the rest of the round.

Doesn't that seem fair?

Examples:
If you tip a robot, you're shut off.
If you're banging up against a robot destructively, you're shut off.

This rule could probably be coupled with that of the card system to avoid a kamikaze type playing style.

I'll admit that this will take swift action by one ref or nearly instant voting, but nevertheless, I think that this sort of penalty should be used more often in gameplay.

Just my two cents,

Matt

Matt,

I'd say I agree in a way. I think a lot of things would work if they were enforced consistently and across the boards. I think people know the rules. Drivers should definitely know the rules. They know what is friendly play and playing mean. I lifeguard and I constantly tell kids to play nice. They know what it is to play nice and usually stop at least until I turn my head. The greatest issue I saw was to be consistent, be fair, be simple, and be open. Point penalty or time penalties can be obscure and confusing. The previous reffing wasn't consistent and definitely wasn't open and easy to understand. I relate a lot to sports because it is somethings a lot of people can relate. Basketball is good when it comes to talking about consistency. If I drive the lane (ha!) and get called for a charge and then go down the court and get ran over by their player, I expect to get the same call. That's what most people are looking for here. Consistency with the game and within the game.

BTW, We also need to add some ridiculous signals for the ref to use to make calls, just to watch Andy do them. Just imagine Andy calling team A for ramming team B doing the techno ticks dance. Ha!

[Jim Zondag]

I thought the Yellow card/Red card system was great. FIRST has needed something like this for years. I think it was properly enforced at the IRI. The only change that I would make is that if FIRSt continues to award point penalties for other game violations (ie foot faults, robots in ball chute, etc) that there should also be a point penalty associate with a yellow card. After all, breaking the ball chute plane can cause you to lose if you get a penatly, but you more or less get one free game misconduct with a yellow card. A yellow card should have a negative point value so that it has risk of reversing the game outcome if it is awarded.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

I'm strongly against point penalties for all but the smallest
infractions. Why? It encourages doing illegal things as a strategic
move. If intentional tipping was 25 points, it's a no brainer to tip
237 before they get on the bar. Even if it's 50 points, I'd still
rather have 237 on the ground, then keeping other people off the bar.
What about intentionally ramming 45 as they get ready to put the 2x
ball on a goal full of 15 balls. As long as you ram then 7 times or
less (and keep them from placing the ball) you've come out ahead.

Even if it was 100 points for an intentional tip, it wouldn't be that
hard for 2 good offensive teams to beat the 1 remaining team, where
they might not have been able to if both were there. If it were 200
points, you might as well DQ, the team.

After I went home yesterday, I KNEW there would be a post regarding this. I should have clarified. I'm not saying that the point penalties should completely replace the DQ penalty - just enhance it.

I still think that this year's DQ rules should be in place. Intentional tipping, entanglement, damage, etc should be an automatic and immediate DQ. The point penalties would be reserved for more of the gray area of the rules. Basically, I'm proposing to replace the yellow card with some points. When I mentioned that accumulated penalties should result in a DQ, I was thinking like basketball: someone can be immediately ejected for a flagrant offense (in FIRST: immediate DQ for intentional damage), or they can foul out after so many fouls (in FIRST: DQ after so many penalties or penalty points).

Does anyone really think that point penalties are confusing? It seems we had point penalties this year for a lot of things - breaking the plane, stepping out of bounds, goal tending, etc. I don't think that was too confusing.

[Jeff Waegelin]

Originally Posted by Matt Adams

I'll admit that this will take swift action by one ref or nearly instant voting, but nevertheless, I think that this sort of penalty should be used more often in gameplay.

The one real problem with that is, it's really tough to make a disable call that quickly. I had to make a couple disable calls at IRI on robots that were outside the playing field and/or damaging the field barriers. Both are fairly straightforward calls, but I was still hesitant and unsure what to do, because disabling a robot can have such a dramatic effect on a match. If it's that tough to quickly call a disable on a robot that has fallen over and gotten entangled, and essentially out of the match, imagine how tough it would be to disable a robot on what is essentially a judgement call by one person.

I think if FIRST were to implement a disable penalty system like you suggest, the rules for disables would need to be extremely well-defined. If you rely on one lone referee to make a snap judgement, you open up the whole situation for argument. And, even with well-defined disable rules, you will still have plenty of controversy every time a robot gets shut off. No matter how defined the rules are, teams will always complain and say the rule does not apply in that situation.

The current system of DQs and the IRI card system aren't perfect, but it's a lot more reliable than instant disables, IMHO. Having had to make calls with far less gravity and ambiguity, I don't think it's a better solution. If it could be made completely objective and defined, it might work, but any time you leave total decision power to one person in the heat of the moment, you're asking for trouble.

[MrToast]

Originally Posted by Jeff Waegelin

I think if FIRST were to implement a disable penalty system like you suggest, the rules for disables would need to be extremely well-defined. If you rely on one lone referee to make a snap judgement, you open up the whole situation for argument. And, even with well-defined disable rules, you will still have plenty of controversy every time a robot gets shut off. No matter how defined the rules are, teams will always complain and say the rule does not apply in that situation.

I'm going to toot my own horn here a little bit...

This was what I originally came up with in the <G101> thread. Three cards (Black, Yellow, Red). A black card is issued for overly aggresive behavior and results in a 5 second shutoff for that robot. A yellow card is issued when a robot damages part of another robot and results in a 10 second shutoff for the offending robot. A red card is issued when a robot disables (IE, tips, destroys vital components) another robot and results in a 15 second shutoff for the offending robot.

Perhaps I'm speaking from inexperience here, but it shouldn't be TOO hard to make these calls. I think it wouldn't be that difficult to see when a robot is being really aggresive or damages/disables another robot. A temporary shutoff time seems like an adequate penalty (perhaps throw in some point reductions?) because it could seriously hamper one alliance's strategy. So if you screw up somebody else's strat by being violent, your strat should get screwed too. Seems fair.

You can see my post (with much more detail) here: <G101> Thread

Enjoy!

MrToast

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by MrToast

Perhaps I'm speaking from inexperience here, but it shouldn't be TOO hard to make these calls. I think it wouldn't be that difficult to see when a robot is being really aggresive or damages/disables another robot.

it's not that it is that hard to see intentional...however...the coordination between all of the refs, field crew, knowing which bot to shut off is difficult. at IRI we had probably the best ref crew and scoring/match running crew available in FIRST AND they were right next to each other. Andy was rarely more than 8 ft from Ken and the rest of the scoring table and they still had problems coordinating which bot to turn off at times. not because it is hard, but because it's a noisy, action-packed two minutes and the refs don't want (and the fans and scorers don't want) to have to scream at each other during the match to constantly disable robots for different amounts of time. let the refs watch the match...then make the call. if it needs immediate attention (few things do but it happens) they can take care of that. but let them do their job without having to get that complicated

[MrToast]

Originally Posted by Collin Fultz

it's not that it is that hard to see intentional...however...the coordination between all of the refs, field crew, knowing which bot to shut off is difficult. at IRI we had probably the best ref crew and scoring/match running crew available in FIRST AND they were right next to each other. Andy was rarely more than 8 ft from Ken and the rest of the scoring table and they still had problems coordinating which bot to turn off at times. not because it is hard, but because it's a noisy, action-packed two minutes and the refs don't want (and the fans and scorers don't want) to have to scream at each other during the match to constantly disable robots for different amounts of time. let the refs watch the match...then make the call. if it needs immediate attention (few things do but it happens) they can take care of that. but let them do their job without having to get that complicated

Headsets?

MrToast

[Steve W]

I must disagree that it would be easy to say what is agressive or not. Just by reading this thread there are many different opinions. Take the Championships last year. One of the teams (forgive me for my poor memory) was built for one purpose only. To play defensive. I heard many coments on how well they played. I also heard just as many comments on how they should have been DQ'd and not allowed to continue with their agressive play. This thread is not to discuss either point but this is stated to show there are always different ways to look at agressive or defensive.

As for issues like entanglement, our team had it's wire/pulley system destoyed a couple of times at Championship alone. Should the team that did it be DQ'd or penalized? I don't believe so. Maybe FIRST could have fixed the problem by giving us a little more weight to work with. We then could have protected our wires. This is also unreasonable. We built the robot knowing what the pitfall might be. The wires were partly protected by our frame but we had to go with weight. We were given the instructions to build our robot robust. We knew from day 1 that there could be interaction. I give no fault to the teams that caused us damage. This does not mean that a team that INTENTIONALLY damages another should not be shut down as per the rules. There is also a rule that states if a ref decides that a robot has a part that can cause damage that it must be fixed before their next match.

One other issue. It is nice if you have time to explain rules like they did at IRI. This would cause every team to have at least 1 less match at competitions. Having worked as an announcer for the last 3 years and being at 10 regionals and 2 Championships, I see how rushed we are to keep things going. I continually have someone pushing to keep things on time. There is no time to stop and explain all of the penalties and infractions to the teams and spectators. I even had a hard time getting explanations for refs calls during the change over as the refs were busy scoring andgetting ready for the next match..

Sorry again for the ranting.

[dez250]

Originally Posted by Collin Fultz

it's not that it is that hard to see intentional...however...the coordination between all of the refs, field crew, knowing which bot to shut off is difficult. at IRI we had probably the best ref crew and scoring/match running crew available in FIRST AND they were right next to each other. Andy was rarely more than 8 ft from Ken and the rest of the scoring table and they still had problems coordinating which bot to turn off at times. not because it is hard, but because it's a noisy, action-packed two minutes and the refs don't want (and the fans and scorers don't want) to have to scream at each other during the match to constantly disable robots for different amounts of time. let the refs watch the match...then make the call. if it needs immediate attention (few things do but it happens) they can take care of that. but let them do their job without having to get that complicated

As a Scorekeeper, i know personally i have never had a problem hearing what the refs and field crew need to convey to me. And also whenever i have had to disable a robot, there never has been a problem conveying what robot to shut down.
Though the problem i see with this whole suite is not what type of penalty system to employ, but the penalties themselves. As of being 8 events thus far this season (4 being offical events, 3 others using FIRST ref crews) is the refs themselves. They are human and have emotions and thus not one ref crew to the next, have the calls been consistant and 100% the same like it should be. I think before we spend time to come up with a way to call penalties, i think the we should find out how the penalties should be defined and held consistent from the first event to the last event.

[Rich Wong]

Originally Posted by dez250

...... have the calls been consistant and 100% the same like it should be. I think before we spend time to come up with a way to call penalties, i think the we should find out how the penalties should be defined and held consistent from the first event to the last event.

I agreed, as long as a penalty system is implemented consistently across all the official competitions then any system is acceptable.
Fair or not fair it they are the rules to follow at all competition and everyone much deal with it.

It was a great idea to beta test the color card penalty system at IRI.
I do like the idea of using color card penalty system.
It is recognized worldwide because it is used in international soccer. It will convey penalties quickly to the audience and teams when the cards are held up instead of flags tossed on the floor.

Only change I would suggest is to have the referees show the cards immediately when the violent is detected and expand the reason for the penalty afterward.