Overdrive <G22> poll: yea or nay?

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by 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.

Okay, as a driver at a regional last week, I'll give my opinion. I was driving a tank steered 6WD that is pretty maneuverable (not so much in high gear, but you can't have everything). I incurred three <G22> penalties; I don't remember the first one (all I remember is that I was really pissed at myself because it was really stupid on my part), and, as I recall, the second + third were when I over corrected slowing down to avoid ramming stuff at 13ft/s. That said, all of the times I got penalties, it could have been avoided by having a bit more practice or by driving a bit more carefully.

The optical trick is really freaky, but I didn't find it hugely annoying. It lessens the higher you look, so I often navigated by looking at the top of our gripper hoops. I don't think it is a huge issue.

However, I would be in favor of adding a 7-8" wide "grace zone" around the lines that can be violated for very short periods of time (less than 2 sec, unless another robot prevents the offending robot from exiting the "grace zone"). Such a change would allow drivers to correct quick mistakes, and give teams time to smack the e-stop during autonomous hybrid mode. It would also maintain the intent of the rule (prevent clockwise travel), and it would be hard to take advantage of.

[Gdeaver]

It's a rule (law). Follow it or take the penalty. You don't have to like it. It just is. Every day of my life I have to deal with rules, regulations, codes, laws, ordinances that I don't like or are just plain badly written and enforced. I just deal with them to the best of my ability. I don't like it and you don't have to like it. It just is. Though in my life, I have taken up the cause to remedy some very bad local ordinances and code addendum's. With a constant persistent effort and the help of others have accomplished change. Our legal regulatory system does work kind off. If you want change then there needs to be a loud cry for a specific change and unity. Allot of people
screaming for different things ia just noise and nobody listens.

[vivek16]

Originally Posted by deshirider430

I believe the rule should only be called if a robot completely enters the quadrant previous to the one it is currently in.

exactly my view

-Vivek

[Jherbie53]

If this poll is a good representation of the FIRST community, then most of us are ok with g22 as is. With at least 74%, as of this post, saying g22 is good. I didn't think it was going to change after week one, and was glad that is didn't. It's a good rule, some what strict, but still good.

I've read here on CD that people think the refs are deciding the game. That is wrong, the teams are committing the penalties and the refs are just calling what they are seeing. I do agree that the penalties are deciding the matches, but its on the teams, not the refs, to change that.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Jherbie53

If this poll is a good representation of the FIRST community, then most of us are ok with g22 as is. With at least 74%, as of this post, saying g22 is good. I didn't think it was going to change after week one, and was glad that is didn't. It's a good rule, some what strict, but still good.

I've read here on CD that people think the refs are deciding the game. That is wrong, the teams are committing the penalties and the refs are just calling what they are seeing. I do agree that the penalties are deciding the matches, but its on the teams, not the refs, to change that.

~60% of us believe it needs to be modified in some form or fashion, even if we think it's good.

[whytheheckme]

Originally Posted by JesseK

~60% of us believe it needs to be modified in some form or fashion, even if we think it's good.

Yes. If we opened a poll that had two options:

The rule is fine.
Something needs to be done to the rule.

64% of us would say that something needs to be done to the rule. And, as I said before, I would be interested as to the percentage of the people that say that the rule is fine that are drivers.

Just imagine going an entire day of shopping and errands, etc. without shifting into the reverse gear, once.

Not impossible (as a tractor-trailer driver might say), but not an easy (and dare I say reasonable *ducks-and-covers*) request. I suppose that it is unreasonable, as I support the rule being changed.

By modifying the rule to allow bots to break the plane, but not completely cross the line, would be the equivalent (in my mind) of allowing you to back out of your space at the parking lot at the mall. Could you have found a way to park so you wouldn't have to back up? Yes. Would it have been a real pain, and consume a lot of your TIME? Yes. Your car has the ability to back up to avoid obstacles. So do our robots.

Jacob

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by JesseK

~60% of us believe it needs to be modified in some form or fashion, even if we think it's good.

I thought I worded the poll more clearly than that. Half of the people who consider it to be a good rule think it could be improved, not necessarily that it needs to be. I'm pretty sure that someone who considers the rule to be in need of a modification would have chosen the "bad, but could be fixed" option.

And some of those who think it could be made better have conceded that their proposed improvement would be practically impossible for the referees to deal with.

[whytheheckme]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

And some of those who think it could be made better have conceded that their proposed improvement would be practically impossible for the referees to deal with.

Earlier when I had said that it would have been difficult for the refs to call, I was referring to if the rule had been modified so that you couldn't cross two consecutive lines.

If the rule was changed so that you only receive a penalty if your ENTIRE bot reverse crosses a line, this would be no more difficult to score, because refs would just have to look for bots LEAVING the plane, instead of ENTERING the plane.

And I agree. I had misspoken in my previous post. 64% of us don't agree that it NEEDS to be changed, but that it COULD be changed. Thanks for the correction.

Jacob

[seanwitte]

Originally Posted by whytheheckme

Just imagine going an entire day of shopping and errands, etc. without shifting into the reverse gear, once.

This isn't really a valid analogy because there are only four points in the track that you cannot reverse through. Think of it more like a one-way security barrier (tire shredder) in your office parking lot. Since the penalties don't occur in every match it would be reasonable to suggest it's avoidable.
Maybe they should change the field and add a one-way barrier between the quadrants instead.

[IKE]

I personally voted for the rule is good but could be improved. I would like to see it improved. Improving it could be as simple as a really wide and better visibility tape used to mark the lane divider.

As a side note I read Lil' Laveries comment about the signalling and got very excited and started to look for flags to order until one of our team members found this rule;
T22> The only equipment that may be brought on to the field is the OPERATOR CONSOLE,
reasonable decorative items, and special clothing and/or equipment required due to a
disability. Other items, particularly those intended to provide a competitive advantage for
the ROBOCOACH, are prohibited.

Kind of sucks because I race in a couple amatuer racing series and caution and stop flags are great and valuable for partially blind corners.

To those that don't feel that a rule like that effects outcome much, tell that to a team that only lost 2 matches 1 due to a penalty by a teammate and were thus lower in the alliance selection ranking.

All this being said, we are trying to live within the current form of the rule. Unfortunately now our scouts spend a good chunk of there time seeking out penalty bots (those that regularly acquire more penalties than positive points) so that we can spend most of our strategy session giving driver's ed tips or modifying our teammates machines to steer better instead of working on scoring strategies and helping autonomous routines.

I like the intent of the rule, and with a little modification (very little) I think it coulb be a great rule.

Now to figure out how to get past rule T22.......

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by IKE

I personally voted for the rule is good but could be improved. I would like to see it improved. Improving it could be as simple as a really wide and better visibility tape used to mark the lane divider.

As a side note I read Lil' Laveries comment about the signalling and got very excited and started to look for flags to order until one of our team members found this rule;
T22> The only equipment that may be brought on to the field is the OPERATOR CONSOLE,
reasonable decorative items, and special clothing and/or equipment required due to a
disability. Other items, particularly those intended to provide a competitive advantage for
the ROBOCOACH, are prohibited.

Kind of sucks because I race in a couple amatuer racing series and caution and stop flags are great and valuable for partially blind corners.

To those that don't feel that a rule like that effects outcome much, tell that to a team that only lost 2 matches 1 due to a penalty by a teammate and were thus lower in the alliance selection ranking.

All this being said, we are trying to live within the current form of the rule. Unfortunately now our scouts spend a good chunk of there time seeking out penalty bots (those that regularly acquire more penalties than positive points) so that we can spend most of our strategy session giving driver's ed tips or modifying our teammates machines to steer better instead of working on scoring strategies and helping autonomous routines.

I like the intent of the rule, and with a little modification (very little) I think it coulb be a great rule.

Now to figure out how to get past rule T22.......

<T22> is easy to "get around" ...:
1> American sign language can transfer information fairly quickly.
2> TarMac crew chief signals give excellent directional commands from a good distance.

There are many ways to "get around" <T22> without breaking any rules. And most of them work well in very noisy enviroments