Overdrive <G22> poll: yea or nay?

[Bongle]

Sorry about my earlier post, I had just come from reading this thread, which contains some fairly bitter anti-G22 posts, so seeing a result like 60% in favour (even if that support is qualified) surprised me. I wasn't trivializing the opposition, I was just surprised to see it so low after reading a thread that was 50-50ish in terms of favouring/decrying G22.

No?

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...094#post674094

Perhaps I should've said "it is uncommon to post unprovoked in support of a rule". If we assume that teams are mostly happy with the game this year, than we would expect a post like yours for every rule in the rulebook.

[Racer26]

G22 has caused some pretty heated debate, and IMO, is ok, but needs to be tweaked. Its causing too many people to get penalties when they are inadvertently breaking the plane, either due to robot rotation, or visibility issues.

I would LIKE to see it changed such that (and yes, I know I'm living in a fantasy world) if less than 50% of the robot crosses the line in the reverse direction AND the robot gains no scoring advantage by doing so (ie. doesnt influence a TRACKBALL, doesn't contact another ROBOT) I dont think the robot should be penalized. I think this modification would keep the intent of the rule intact, while allowing for incidental plane breaking non-consequential to the outcome of the game.

[GaryVoshol]

A thought I just had. The vast majority of <G22> violations happened on the lane divider lines, not the finish lines. I suspect it is related to turning vs going straight. The funny thing though, I cannot remember if there are more violations at the far end of the field vs near end. In fact, I remember one team who were dinged twice in Hybrid mode claim that they didn't cross at all. It happened right in front of them, so visibility wasn't an issue.

I'll pay more attention this weekend to see if near-end/far-end makes much of a difference.

[kborer22]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

A thought I just had. The vast majority of <G22> violations happened on the lane divider lines, not the finish lines. I suspect it is related to turning vs going straight. The funny thing though, I cannot remember if there are more violations at the far end of the field vs near end. In fact, I remember one team who were dinged twice in Hybrid mode claim that they didn't cross at all. It happened right in front of them, so visibility wasn't an issue.

I'll pay more attention this weekend to see if near-end/far-end makes much of a difference.

if i had to estimate it would probably be 70% farside and 30% near side(from what i have seen), alot of the near side occuring in hybrid mode, and the far side during teleoperated period.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I think the rule is good but needs some modification. I look at the rules as being imposed constraints to allow team members to plan, design, and play under additional simulated physical constraints that real world problems will present in the future. However, there are great many areas of the field that for one reason or another, the drivers cannot see that they are in violation. How can a driver 30 feet away, looking through a two lexan panels with reflections and a multitude of vertical poles, tell that their bumper which is several inches off the floor and in bad light, has just crossed backwards over the lane marker by 1/4". (The parallax in this situation is tremendous) There is just no way that can occur. Make the rule that the whole (or the majority of) robot must cross backwards over a line to incur the penalty and then I think you have something. Even refs must be hard pressed to see that small a change accurately.

Al basically said it all. The huge number of penalties we see from <G22> are accidents because of the problem he described, or forgetting that 1/2" of your 42" wide ball holding mechanism re-crossed the line when you turned, though the base of the robot did not.

[TubaMorg]

Apologies to Alan for continuing the debate here with perhaps a slightly different perspective.

I would argue that requiring teams to live up to the high standard of G22 is exactly what FIRST is about. For too long educational standards have been slipping (in this country) due to lowering expectations in the classroom. The end result is a less educated society which is less competitive with the rest of the world. I stand firm for applying the rule as written and as it has been enforced the last two weeks of regionals because we are here to show that difficult tasks are obstacles to be conquered not avoided. Tweaking G22 to make it easier for teams to avoid penalties is admitting defeat. Some are saying that G22 is just too darned hard to adhere to, so let's lower our expectations to get more people over the bar. I reject this argument. If we accept the premise that FIRST is about changing paradigms, is about celebrating technology and innovation the way we celebrate athletics, then we should accept G22 as a difficult standard that must be adhered to.

Most opponents/detractors of G22 argue that the large number of penalties being called is effecting the outcomes of matches. This is true in some cases but I haven't seen any data supporting the MOST assertion. Even if violation of G22 were effecting the outcome of ALL matches, however, I wouldn't support any relaxation of the rule. In light of this year's homework assignment, some have gotten the impression that the emphasis this year is on the competition, rather than the process leading up to the competition. The difference between the two is an argument better left for another thread. I will argue, however, that even though the homework this year is about building publicity for FIRST, the intention is to raise public awareness for the PROCESS. In our media driven society, it is almost essential that FIRST receive adequate media attention in order to obtain the larger goal of creating a paradigm shift that makes science and technology popular again. However, this does not mean we have to lower the high standards set forth every year. Once we start relaxing the rules, erosion of quality occurs.

Every year we get a new game. Every year there are many challenges and obstacles to overcome to meet the parameters set forth in the game. Every year some people have objections to some of these challenges. Am I saying that no one should ever object to any of the rules? Of course not. Sometimes clarification is needed. Sometimes a rule just doesn't fit with the game. G22 is clear and the GDC has stated that there will be no change to the rule in how it is worded OR in how it is enforced. For the teams that still have competitions to attend you now have a choice: Meet the challenge of G22 and overcome it, or get penalized every match and complain. Which team are you going to be?

[Racer26]

All I can say in response TubaMorg is that I would rather legitimately win a match against another team than to win only because they were called on an unintentional violation of G22

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by JesseK

I like the cross-field signalling idea. Currently our robocoach sits on our side after Hybrid and cheers when we do something great, and that's about it. I never noticed if 1731 used their signaling device in teleoperated mode.

I don't think they ever did actually use them in teleop, but they certainly would have been able to use them not only to signal the robot, but give instructions to the drive team as well. One of our members confusion about it just spawned the idea for it.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by TubaMorg

Every year we get a new game. Every year there are many challenges and obstacles to overcome to meet the parameters set forth in the game. Every year some people have objections to some of these challenges. Am I saying that no one should ever object to any of the rules? Of course not. Sometimes clarification is needed. Sometimes a rule just doesn't fit with the game. G22 is clear and the GDC has stated that there will be no change to the rule in how it is worded OR in how it is enforced. For the teams that still have competitions to attend you now have a choice: Meet the challenge of G22 and overcome it, or get penalized every match and complain. Which team are you going to be?

G22 & the way it's worded isn't really a "challenge" to overcome. It's more like having to stay inside the lines in 1st grade. It's like a speed limit in the middle of a sunny day in the desert with no one around for miles. These are other examples of blind rules that must be followed just because of rules. If we blindly believe that the GDC is always correct in their rules then I simply must refer us all back to the principles derived in this very wonderfully written post about what being professional means.

More relative to FRC, when something breaks and we get 3+ penalties for that instance, is G22 still considered a "challenge"? Particularly teams who are allied with other bots that seem to break more often than other bots ... is it still a "challenge" that the whole alliance is penalized?

[seanwitte]

If this is such an issue then why aren't teams being more careful on the far side of the field? A 10 point ding would make you think twice about making that turn if you aren't sure you're in position. Based on the ongoing penalty totals many of the drivers are not making the necessary adjustments. If your robot can't make a tight turn without crossing back over the plane then it's a limitation of the design and you need to make a wider turn. Instead of calling on the GDC to relax the rules you need to be calling on the drivers to adjust their lines on the turns.

[David Brinza]

I think the rule is fine, but can be improved. Having a momentary incursions across the plane carry the same penalty as, say, impeding a robot in the process of hurdling doesn't seem appropriate. "The punishment doesn't fit the crime."

Either apply an "advantage" rule (i.e. the offending robot made contact with a Trackball or an opposing alliance robot as a result of crossing the plane) or reduce the point deduction for the penalty (5 points).

[Racer26]

Exactly, it could be like NASCAR, they're not allowed to go below the blend line (the yellow(or is it white?) line at the bottom of the track), but if they do, theres no penalty unless they gained a position by doing so.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by JesseK

G22 & the way it's worded isn't really a "challenge" to overcome.

Yes it is. The distance and viewing angles are most definately a challange to the drive team.

Originally Posted by JesseK

It's more like having to stay inside the lines in 1st grade.

Then why are teams having such troubles with this???

Originally Posted by JesseK

It's like a speed limit in the middle of a sunny day in the desert with no one around for miles. These are other examples of blind rules that must be followed just because of rules. If we blindly believe that the GDC is always correct in their rules then I simply must refer us all back to the principles derived in this very wonderfully written post about what being professional means.

I believe TubaMorg stated he does not believe in 'Blindly' following the GDCs rules.

And professional engineers look for how to overcome an obstacle (Which I view <G22> as).

Originally Posted by JesseK

More relative to FRC, when something breaks and we get 3+ penalties for that instance, is G22 still considered a "challenge"? Particularly teams who are allied with other bots that seem to break more often than other bots ... is it still a "challenge" that the whole alliance is penalized?

Have you ever considered having your scout team tell you that your alliance partner 'tends to break' in a way that causes penalties??? Have you ever considered helping them fix what breaks so that they won't break when you are out on the field.

All of your arguments against <G22> are nothing more than challanges that can be overcome ... if you put forth the effort. Taking mulligans is easy, shooting from the deep rough is difficult. FIRST is about overcoming difficult.

Again Just my $.02

[scottanderson]

At the AZ regional there was a match with 120 or 130 penalty points (can’t remember which) and 90-100 of them were in Hybrid mode, the team was just spinning in circles around the lines, not intentionally I would imagine.

Sorry, but if your robot is spinning in circles in hybrid mode and giving you penalties, then that's a programming error, not a problem with the rules...

That said, I think that modifying the rule to say the entire robot has to go back over the line, not just 1/4" of it, satisfies both the intent of the rule and fixes the problem.

That said, it's a bit late to be changing rules now that so many competitions have already run...

[whytheheckme]

I'd be interested to see a poll / the response from drivers only. While lots of people here are spectating as to how easy it should be to follow G22, I'd be interested to see how many of those people have been down on the field at driver level while they were being incurred.

G22 is not easy to follow, by any means. And when I say not easy, I don't mean that it's something that drivers could get better at with more practice, it's something that if a team wants to play the game in an efficient manner, is almost a probability. It'd be interesting to break down the statistics as far as how many G22 penalties each team has received based on robot type (my guess would be that teams that don't handle the ball at all would have the fewest infractions.)

The game is difficult enough in trying to catch a round object larger than the length and width of your bot. Worrying about crossing over lines on the track completely changes the gameplay. It's almost as if G22 is now defining how the game is played (from a strategical sense,) instead of it being a rule that prevents reverse traffic.

Literally, most infractions are tips of robots crossing over lines. Perhaps the rule could be modified so that the penalty is given if the ENTIRE bot crosses the line backwards. This would make a lot more sense from the driver perspective.


And as an aside,

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Perhaps the zones should be marked out in colored gaffer tape, not white.

At BAE, the tape on one side of the box WAS colored gaffers tape. Perhaps this isn't standard, but it really did help there.

Jacob