Rookie Team impressions from Kettering

[John Hooper]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Apparently, you were not in Portland a few years ago.

-dave

Being a rookie, all I know is what I was told. This problem was with the arena electronics not being able to communicate with all of the robots. At first, some robots could not be shut down, then some of them in certain positions could not move at all.

If this is a common problem, I am surprised they don't bring backup systems. Rock stars don't stop concerts for a few hours to fiddle around with their sound systems.

Having huge penalties for easily made mistakes that give a team no advantage only serves to make the rules more important than the competition, the robots, and the spectators. If the purpose of FIRST is to promote engineering and technology like a sport, hoping to tap into the same excitement that people feel for sports, then the rules should be reasonable and not interfere with the game.

Even if your team didn't have a problem with the rule, the game is played in alliance with two other teams, and either one of them could knock out your entire score in less than ten seconds. I think the actual intent of the rule was to stop teams from going backwards to grab balls or score. It wasn't really the intent of the rule to obliterate a lot of good work just because a robot, while trying to race around a track, over-corrected coming out of a turn.

Also, you can tell spectators to watch for flags and mentally adjust the scores while they are watching, but there is a good reason why sports aren't played this way: people don't like it. People don't want to watch two race cars blast down the final stretch and see one outmuscle the other, only to have it decided five minutes later that actually both of those cars lost because of penalties that happened dozens of laps before, and really the third place car won.

Sure, make the rules any way you like: but if the purpose is to promote your cause and draw in the public, these rules don't work.

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by John Hooper

Being a rookie, all I know is what I was told. This problem was with the arena electronics not being able to communicate with all of the robots. At first, some robots could not be shut down, then some of them in certain positions could not move at all.

If this is a common problem, I am surprised they don't bring backup systems. Rock stars don't stop concerts for a few hours to fiddle around with their sound systems.

The problem was with the transmitters. They do pack extra transmitters, but there was only one spare left for this event and two transmitters failed. The FTA (official FIRST Tech guru) was trying to fix the system instead of work around it. This is not a common occurence and is usually resolved within an hour. In this case we had to get spare transmitters shipped next-day to fix the system (delivered during lunch Saturday), so when the Qualifying matches commenced, they were on a jury-rigged system.

Seperately, the inspectors mentioned that most teams were glad for the shutdown, because though it was boring for the spectators, the pit crews used this valuable time to greatly upgrade their robots, which resulted in a more exciting competition than what would've happened otherwise. Just a point that a waste of time for some was very valuable to others.

Originally Posted by John Hooper

Yata Yata Penalty criticism

The result of all of the penalties being called was more disciplined drivers. As the competition went on, the referees threw fewer and fewer penalties (The finals didn't have any penalties thrown). It's a learning curve that teams work through, and this group of very green teams performed spectacularly in handling the learning curve and other challanges the game presented.

These rookie teams ran the spectrum from decent to spectacular. The rookie hurdlers made for a very exciting elimination round. I think this is the first regional where I can honestly say that there wasn't one useless team. Every team did what it was designed to do very well and efficiently. There weren't any lame ducks on this pond. These teams performed better than many veteran teams that I see.

Originally Posted by dlavery

Apparently, you were not in Portland a few years ago.

I wasn't there, but I saw the webcast and recall two Portlands that had massive delays (one was '04, I think the other was '06). This delay was much worse. At least Mark Leon could keep the crowd somewhat engaged during the shutdown.

[John Hooper]

Originally Posted by Dan Swando

Seperately, the inspectors mentioned that most teams were glad for the shutdown, because though it was boring for the spectators, the pit crews used this valuable time to greatly upgrade their robots, which resulted in a more exciting competition than what would've happened otherwise. Just a point that a waste of time for some was very valuable to others.

Our robot, and five others, were kept on the track for hours, so the long delay was both boring to the spectators and a disadvantage to our team and others.

The result of all of the penalties being called was more disciplined drivers. As the competition went on, the referees threw fewer and fewer penalties (The finals didn't have any penalties thrown). It's a learning curve that teams work through, and this group of very green teams performed spectacularly in handling the learning curve and other challanges the game presented.

As I saw it, the referees mercifully relaxed the "breaking the plane" rule quite a bit, which was clearly the right thing to do. We did instruct our drivers to never back up, even if a robot had them blocked in, unless they were absolutely certain they were nowhere near a line. This didn't improve the game, it just meant that people sat stuck at the ends of the track a lot, afraid to back up and go around.

I don't know why anyone wants to argue for a penalty that is obviously far too severe and damages the flow of the game.

I am giving feedback and making suggestions in an attempt to improve the competitions and further the stated goals of FIRST. I am a middle-aged software engineer who is donating a lot of time and money to participate in FIRST because I believe it is a good idea.

Robots can be greatly improved in a few hours, and competitions and competition rules can be improved over time as well -- but not if you spin negatives into positives and live in delusion.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by John Hooper

Our robot, and five others, were kept on the track for hours, so the long delay was both boring to the spectators and a disadvantage to our team and others.

As I saw it, the referees mercifully relaxed the "breaking the plane" rule quite a bit, which was clearly the right thing to do.

Two points here...

1. In retrospect, we should have cleared the field earlier and had those teams come back out when the work-around was put in place. We kept trying to fix it, and kept thinking that the next action was going to make things all better. I agree that this was unfair to the teams on the field. I am sorry that we did not clear the field earlier.

2. No, the referees did not relax G22 as the competition went on. We worked hard to be consistent through the entire event. Clearly, drivers got better. As the head referee, I spoke with many drivers as Saturday's matches proceeded, telling them that they were getting considerably better. The day ended with the final 2 matches being penalty-free, if I recall correctly.

From my perspective, this rookie event was great. This event prepared all of these teams to compete at a high level at their official FIRST events during the upcoming weeks.

Andy Baker

[Kimberly]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

We kept trying to fix it, and kept thinking that the next action was going to make things all better.

LOL I live with a techie and I've heard the "I've almost got it" so many times, I know to prepare not to see him for hours! Sometimes days.

Perhaps the solution here is to let wives write the official FIRST rule for how technical problems are to be handled during competition. My suggestion would be to set a 15 minute time limit for the technical gurus to fix the problem, then the field is cleared and a one hour break begins.

Kimberly

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Dan Swando

...
Seperately, the inspectors mentioned that most teams were glad for the shutdown, because though it was boring for the spectators, the pit crews used this valuable time to greatly upgrade their robots, which resulted in a more exciting competition than what would've happened otherwise. Just a point that a waste of time for some was very valuable to others.


The result of all of the penalties being called was more disciplined drivers. As the competition went on, the referees threw fewer and fewer penalties (The finals didn't have any penalties thrown). It's a learning curve that teams work through, and this group of very green teams performed spectacularly in handling the learning curve and other challanges the game presented.
...

What was the up-side for the six on the field and six more in the que during the 3++ hour delay? Do you think maybe the pits should have been closed until all teams had access?

I saw just about as many infractions later on as I saw early, but not as many being called. I assumed it was because the refs had gotten too tired to catch every last one.

[EricH]

John, before you think poorly of the penalties this year (a little late, I know), there was a rule in 2005 that was far, far worse.

Starting at the beginning here: There were 8 triangular "loading zones" on the field, 4 per alliance. Teams "in" the zones were protected, much like a hurdler is this year. This was due to safety issues.

Problem #1: the definition of "in the zone" changed repeatedly. Eventually, it was "anything touching the zone is in" and stayed that way. I think this was somewhere around Week 1, maybe a little later.

Problem #2: any contact with a robot retrieving scoring objects in the zone was a 30-point penalty.

Oh, and scores were lower that year, comparatively.

This meant that contacting a robot in the loading zone was almost a sure guarantee of losing the match.

It's better this year, though not by much. At least the refs don't have to decide whether to give 30 points or 10 points in penalties (yes, there were two different point values in 2005! 30 points as above, and 10 points for anything else).

I'm not trying to put a positive light on this, just show that there have been worse penalties in the past.

[John Hooper]

If that is true, Eric, then all the more reason for FIRST to be responsive in improving the rules. Maybe I have been naive in taking the stated goals of FIRST seriously. There is no doubt that Draconian penalties for slight acccidental infractions that in no way confer an advantage to your team ruins the competition for spectators, and they certainly don't make the participants happy either ... well, except for the teams that are lucky enough to escape these penalties and lucky enough to be in alliance with teams who manage to avoid such penalties.

Maybe every team should spin a big dial after matches as well, and have huge random numbers arbitrarily added to or deducted from their scores.

[Craig Roys]

John,
The problem, as I see it, is this - where do you draw the line? The rule states that you must move counterclockwise around the track and once you completely enter a zone you cannot cross back. Consider the following two scenarios:

1) Robot A rounds a corner, crosses the line and accidentally crosses back briefly before moving on.

2) Robot B rounds a corner, crosses the line and turns to pick up a ball on the line causing them to briefly cross back before moving on.

Both robots did the same thing, but in one case it was a big advantage and in the other case it was a mistake. The refs shouldn't have to decide the intent of the robot recrossing the line - that would/could be too subjective causing more arguments.

Consider a high-sticking pentalty in hockey. It doesn't matter the intent of the player high-sticking, just that they can't do it. A large number of high-sticking pentalties are accidents, but you need to be in control of your stick. Robot drivers need to be in control of their robot.

I'm not saying I like or dislike the rule, but I understand why it is called the way it is.

Just my $0.02

[John Hooper]

Craig,

I agree that sometimes "intention" rules can lead to subjective and inconsistent rulings that are also unpopular. However, they are often used in sports like soccer and football for flagrant or unsportmanlike actions, carrying a much higher penalty for the same action. I personally didn't see a robot "breaking the plane" in an attempt to get a ball. Every case appeared to be accidental. If it had been a 2 point penalty, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of many games.

[T3_1565]

is there any video of the competition?? I am interested in a team that went to the competition!

thanks

[Craig Roys]

Originally Posted by John Hooper

If it had been a 2 point penalty, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of many games.

True except for the fact that with a 2pt penalty a team may have been more willing to take a penalty to go back to get a ball or stop a team from setting a ball on the overpass at the end. I saw a few instances where a team wanted to get a ball that rolled into the previous zone and they thought better of going to get it due to the penalty.

I don't know if there is an easy answer here - just playing a little devil's advocate

[John Hooper]

Originally Posted by Craig Roys

True except for the fact that with a 2pt penalty a team may have been more willing to take a penalty to go back to get a ball or stop a team from setting a ball on the overpass at the end. I saw a few instances where a team wanted to get a ball that rolled into the previous zone and they thought better of going to get it due to the penalty.

Well, if they intentionally broke the rule to get a ball or stop a team from scoring, that would be the proper 10-point penalty. Like in football, where accidentally grabbing the facemask and immediately letting go is a 5-yard penalty, but intentionally grabbing the face mask and hanging on is a personal foul, 15-yard penalty.

Anyway, many veterans of these competitions have let me know privately that FIRST does not alter rules just because they work against the entire purpose of FIRST. The important thing, apparently, is not to try to improve the rules to make the game more exciting and playable, but to grimly discipline young people into cautiously driving around a track like grannies, fearing above all making a mistake.

My bad, carry on.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by John Hooper

Well, if they intentionally broke the rule to get a ball or stop a team from scoring, that would be the proper 10-point penalty. Like in football, where accidentally grabbing the facemask and immediately letting go is a 5-yard penalty, but intentionally grabbing the face mask and hanging on is a personal foul, 15-yard penalty.

Anyway, many veterans of these competitions have let me know privately that FIRST does not alter rules just because they work against the entire purpose of FIRST. The important thing, apparently, is not to try to improve the rules to make the game more exciting and playable, but to grimly discipline young people into cautiously driving around a track like grannies, fearing above all making a mistake.

My bad, carry on.

Wow, you must have gotten hit pretty hard by G22!

If you think about it, there aren't really any other ways to accomplish the GDC's task of making a game with circular movement. You could change G22 to say "robots may not cross the plane of the line" with no associated punishment, but what happens if a robot does it anyway and decides the match because of it? Do you take the win away? Do you ignore it? Ignoring it results in other teams doing it, and now you don't have your desired circular game. Taking the win away is a more severe version of what happens now. You could yellow card them and not penalize points-wise, but then you risk having teams fully DQed due to line-crossing, which is worse.

You could assign a lower point value, but once the penalty points are less than 8, the incentive is to cross the line and grab the ball because the hurdle you can get with it is worth more than the penalty you'll earn grabbing it.

The GDC wanted a game with circular motion and without massive physical defense as seen in 2006 and 2007. The only way to 'motivate' teams was to penalize those that did not go circularly.

Also, the purpose of FIRST is to expose young people to engineers and engineering. Technically, the purpose of FIRST is more the experience you had in the build season, not in the regional. Having a questionable rule (and there are always questionable rules, even in the workplace) doesn't subtract from its mission of increasing awareness of attractiveness of engineering careers.

[Kimberly]

Originally Posted by Bongle

Wow, you must have gotten hit pretty hard by G22!

Actually, no, not really. What I did see happen at times was a robot backing up to get around robots stopped in front of them, then getting a penalty because they were trying to keep moving rather than wait for the stopped robots to move. Our drivers eventually did learn to just wait rather than try to get around, but that's not the point. The point is that the rule seems to have some unintentional consequences, and should probably be changed, however, since this is a one-time event, what difference does it really make? I'll use all of it as a teaching moment. This one might involve teaching about rules that don't really do what they're intended to do and the futility of getting a bureaucracy to make changes that are in everybody's best interest.