String Theory: <G22> at the Championships

[Valley Raider]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

Tying string on your robot is lawyering the game, in my opinion, and the time spent coming up with schemes like this might be more fruitfully spent learning to drive your robots in a way that did not violate <G22>.

With all due respect lawyering the game is exactly what FIRST does, there just not very good at it. Every year they come up with some silly rule that dies need to be their. <G22> is a rule that has decided regionals, and not because of human driving. I have seen matches lost because two robots driving in Hybrid period have run into each-other and cross a line drawing a penalty. I know some will clam that this can be prevented but the fact is this rule is nit-picky.

FIRST makes up roles for their games without thinking about the practicality of them during game play. A great example of this is the 6 foot role that originally existed in the opponents home stretch. They pulled this rule after it became clear that the most teams were not going to be able to get the second trackball down. I say most because my team had a plan with in the rules for getting it down that would have work. This rule didn't need to be removed but it was because it offered nothing to the game.

<G22> is a rule that doesn't nothing to help the game. You already can't play defense for longer then 6 seconds. Tell me what does a team gain from driving backwards, nothing so why does this role need to be in place? Lawyering around the roles is part of the game and if someone can come up with a good way of getting around a pointless rule then good for the its time well spent.

Plus when your Robots in a crate there not much you can do to learn how to drive it better.

[jblay]

i think the whole point of the role is to keep robots moving in a similar direction and to promote scoring to make it more exciting but in practice it makes the games less fun to watch because they are often decided by penalties.

[JaneYoung]

It's a little strange to see the word, rule, changed into the word, role, in this discussion - at times skewing everything a bit more.

[Qbranch]

Originally Posted by Uberbots

You know, its kinda funny how we are talking about entanglement in a topic about string theory

And, if you did have strings attached to your robot, a legal entaglement would gain a whole new physical dimension...

-q

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Valley Raider

<G22> is a rule that doesn't nothing to help the game. You already can't play defense for longer then 6 seconds. Tell me what does a team gain from driving backwards, nothing so why does this role need to be in place? Lawyering around the roles is part of the game and if someone can come up with a good way of getting around a pointless rule then good for the its time well spent.

Plus when your Robots in a crate there not much you can do to learn how to drive it better.

So you're saying that <G22> helps the game? If that isn't your intent, then pay attention to that double negative.

Now, as to the rule being "pointless" and what teams gain from going backwards, a team can gain a lot from going backwards. Let's see-- the chance to grab another trackball, allowing a second hurdle--uninterrupted defense--I can think of more. The point of the rule is to keep the game moving in a particular direction. If you saw old games, they were all over the place.

Now, your final statement is wrong. You see, you can build a practice robot (or just a practice drivetrain) to practice driving with while the real robot is in the crate on its way to wherever it's going.

BTW, if you think FIRST doesn't think about practicality of their rules, then you need to watch the kickoff again. One of the "Big Three" made the comment that Aidan (the HEAD REF of head refs) was "complaining" a lot about "How are we going to enforce this?"

And the 6-foot rule was added pretty much last-minute, as GDC members have noted here (if you read between the lines of the threads about it). So that's not a good example. (Plus, it was removed almost instantly.)

[Protronie]

Originally Posted by Qbranch

And, if you did have strings attached to your robot, a legal entaglement would gain a whole new physical dimension...

-q

Legal entanglement NOT GOOD!

I could see your bot getting stopped by another bot simple parking on your string... also not good.

But along the thinking of a G22 work around...

Instead of a string trailing from behind, what about some sort of pipe or pole extending out over the pane. Something that you could extend and retract at will?

[vivek16]

Originally Posted by Protronie

Legal entanglement NOT GOOD!

I could see your bot getting stopped by another bot simple parking on your string... also not good.

But along the thinking of a G22 work around...

Instead of a string trailing from behind, what about some sort of pipe or pole extending out over the pane. Something that you could extend and retract at will?

You mean kinda like a piston?

-Vivek

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Valley Raider

With all due respect lawyering the game is exactly what FIRST does, there just not very good at it. Every year they come up with some silly rule that dies need to be their.
...
I know some will clam that this can be prevented but the fact is this rule is nit-picky.
...
FIRST makes up roles for their games without thinking about the practicality of them during game play.
...
They pulled this rule after it became clear that the most teams were not going to be able to get the second trackball down.
...
This rule didn't need to be removed but it was because it offered nothing to the game.
...
<G22> is a rule that doesn't nothing to help the game.
....
Lawyering around the roles is part of the game and if someone can come up with a good way of getting around a pointless rule then good for the its time well spent.

Oh, please, would you consider offering even a scintilla of factual evidence to support even one of these rather astounding statements? As Thomas Paine pointed out, outrageous claims require outrageous proof. In particular, I eagerly await your well-reasoned, justified rationale for the statement "FIRST makes up roles [sic] for their games without thinking about the practicality of them during game play." I can think of several people who would argue this point with you rather vehemently. If you can not back up such statements, you might reconsider whether it is prudent to make such public assertions.

Lest you think that this is just a knee-jerk reaction to an insulting diatribe, there is a rational reason for the above request. As engineers (or engineer wanna-be's) we need to be able to clearly communicate with peers and compatriots, and provide appropriate explanations for assertions that may not be intuitively obvious. If we can not do so, if we instead rely solely on unsupported opinion and not fact, then our effectiveness is severely limited. One may be able to find the optimal solution to a given problem, but if you can not tell someone else WHY it is the optimal answer - with clear, lucid language supported by factual underpinnings - then your utility to an engineering team is minimized. So I would suggest that this may be an opportune time to practice this skill.

-dave


.

[Laaba 80]

Originally Posted by Valley Raider

With all due respect lawyering the game is exactly what FIRST does, there just not very good at it. Every year they come up with some silly rule that dies need to be their. <G22> is a rule that has decided regionals, and not because of human driving. I have seen matches lost because two robots driving in Hybrid period have run into each-other and cross a line drawing a penalty. I know some will clam that this can be prevented but the fact is this rule is nit-picky.

FIRST makes up roles for their games without thinking about the practicality of them during game play. A great example of this is the 6 foot role that originally existed in the opponents home stretch. They pulled this rule after it became clear that the most teams were not going to be able to get the second trackball down. I say most because my team had a plan with in the rules for getting it down that would have work. This rule didn't need to be removed but it was because it offered nothing to the game.

<G22> is a rule that doesn't nothing to help the game. You already can't play defense for longer then 6 seconds. Tell me what does a team gain from driving backwards, nothing so why does this role need to be in place? Lawyering around the roles is part of the game and if someone can come up with a good way of getting around a pointless rule then good for the its time well spent.

Plus when your Robots in a crate there not much you can do to learn how to drive it better.

I dont get how you can say this. It has a huge impact on the game, and what makes you think it isnt what the GDC wanted. Just because you dont like a rule they made doesnt mean you should talk about how they dont think when they make the rules. Come on. Do you know how much work they put into making the game and the rules? I cant believe you would even say something like that. Yes they do make the rules complicated but have you ever thought of why they do it that way? On kickoff day they are going to have 10s of thousands of people reading the rules trying to find some advantages. Do you really think they could go through all that without someone finding a problem with the rules?
Please concentrate a little more when you type please, you are missing words in some sentences, and others just plain dont make sence. please keep that in mind for future posts.
Joey

[Valley Raider]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Oh, please, would you consider offering even a scintilla of factual evidence to support even one of these rather astounding statements? As Thomas Paine pointed out, outrageous claims require outrageous proof. In particular, I eagerly await your well-reasoned, justified rationale for the statement "FIRST makes up roles [sic] for their games without thinking about the practicality of them during game play." I can think of several people who would argue this point with you rather vehemently. If you can not back up such statements, you might reconsider whether it is prudent to make such public assertions.

Lest you think that this is just a knee-jerk reaction to an insulting diatribe, there is a rational reason for the above request. As engineers (or engineer wanna-be's) we need to be able to clearly communicate with peers and compatriots, and provide appropriate explanations for assertions that may not be intuitively obvious. If we can not do so, if we instead rely solely on unsupported opinion and not fact, then our effectiveness is severely limited. One may be able to find the optimal solution to a given problem, but if you can not tell someone else WHY it is the optimal answer - with clear, lucid language supported by factual underpinnings - then your utility to an engineering team is minimized. So I would suggest that this may be an opportune time to practice this skill.

-dave


.

I did not mean this as a slam against the game design team. The point I am trying to make is that the game rules tend to be over complicated. I am very disappointed that Regonals are being decided by Ref rulings on the field and not by Robot performances. SVR was a great example of this. I think the the game design team needs to work more on the game (I don't know what exactly how much time is spent but I would like to see more).

My comments were extreme but this is a problem. My team designed our robot to comply with the six foot alliance home zone rule, we spend two days working on a solution and then the rule changed. I feel major rules changes like this shouldn't happen.

<G22> has caused 1000's of points in penalties. And I have not seen a single team intentionally drive backwards. I think if this rule had been examined more before the game was created this could have been avoided. That was the point I was trying to make.

I agree some of my claims are ridiculous, but it was in part a rant about penalties changing the outcome of the game. All I want is for when the match is over to be able to look up at the score and not think, ok if blue get two penalties then red wins.

What I ask is that after the game is created that people from teams can provide feedback. These can be students who have already graduated but they need to have experienced what is is like to be on the field and know how people on the teams are going to think and play the game. I also feel the referees should have all formally been members of teams. I read the rule book once and often times I find myself knowing more than the referees (I don't want to make is seem like I know everything its just that I have corrected the referees multiple times).

These rules needed to be reviewed before kick off.

Here is my suggestion, when the team review the game and discovers rule <GX> by pose some confusion/excess penalties then create a general post about basically what the rule would accomplish without revealing game clues.

For example a question for <G22> could be.

What do FIRST teams think about a rule restricting movement on the field?
I think that people could have provide helpful information that would have improved <G22. if the was done.

A question for the impeding a hurdler rule could read.

What do FIRST teams think about a rule protecting Robots who are in the process of scoring?

This way team could at least provide a Ya or Na for major game rules. I understand that is some cases this might not work but I think these are two reasonable examples.

Again I don't know everything that goes on when the game is created I just think that more thought needs to go into it, given the dedication to FIRST that so many of us have.

Sorry if I offended you or the rest of the game design team...

[dtengineering]

Much of my post has been deleted as it was a response to Valley Raider's initial post, which has been somewhat modified by the post above. I would encourage people who intend to post criticism, of the GDC's rules or interpretations of rules, or any other issue for that matter, to stick to the issue and not cast aspersions upon the group or individuals in question. It is okay to disagree... even disagree strongly... but to say "with all due respect" and then show a lack of respect for an individual or group who worked extremely hard at a difficult task is something of a contradiction. If you want to make a point, make it... but stick to the point and offer rationale to support your position.

So.... With all due respect (and believe me... there is a lot of respect due to this group) to the GDC, I haven't agreed with all the rules or decisions this year (technically agreeing with 99.5% of them is not "all"), but have certainly accepted them all and had a great time competing this year and enjoyed the game regardless. Thanks for your hard work this past year... I wish my team was still playing, but I'm already looking forward to next year's game!

Jason

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Valley Raider

I am very disappointed that Regonals are being decided by Ref rulings on the field and not by Robot performances.

I've sat through 1-1/2 regionals at the scorekeeper's table. The only people with a better view at an FRC match are the referees. I didn't see a single incident where a referee drove a robot back across a line, drawing a <G22> penalty. As far as I'm concerned, driver mistakes are changing the results of matches, not referee rulings.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Valley Raider

I did not mean this as a slam against the game design team. The point I am trying to make is that the game rules tend to be over complicated. I am very disappointed that Regonals are being decided by Ref rulings on the field and not by Robot performances. SVR was a great example of this. I think the the game design team needs to work more on the game (I don't know what exactly how much time is spent but I would like to see more).

My comments were extreme but this is a problem. My team designed our robot to comply with the six foot alliance home zone rule, we spend two days working on a solution and then the rule changed. I feel major rules changes like this shouldn't happen.

The GDC has to make the rules complicated because of people who try to find every possible loophole. Sorry, but that's the way it is. They have their own time constraints--full-time jobs, family, travel distance, that sort of thing. So I don't know how they can spend more time.

You designed to comply with the 6' limit. I think you may want a new design process, starting with game analysis. But that's a discussion for another day.

SVR was a case of a ref not calling a clear rule correctly. That's another (beaten to death) discussion.

<G22> has caused 1000's of points in penalties. And I have not seen a single team intentionally drive backwards. I think if this rule had been examined more before the game was created this could have been avoided. That was the point I was trying to make.

I can think of some instances, usually to free a clotheslined robot. I'm sure they examined the rule as much as possible. The problem is that Week 1 (or maybe the preships) is the FIRST time the game is seen played for real. So it's hard to tell what rules will be the penalty-getters. Were you around for 2005's "Kiss of Death" penalty? Slight contact at the wrong place/time, -30 points instantly. That swung a lot of matches. That's how the game was played that year.

I agree some of my claims are ridiculous, but it was in part a rant about penalties changing the outcome of the game. All I want is for when the match is over to be able to look up at the score and not think, ok if blue get two penalties then red wins.

Can/do penalties change the outcome of pro sports? I think so. It's just that the penalty is applied DURING the game, not afterwards. Again, that's just the way it's played here.

What I ask is that after the game is created that people from teams can provide feedback. These can be students who have already graduated but they need to have experienced what is is like to be on the field and know how people on the teams are going to think and play the game. I also feel the referees should have all formally been members of teams. I read the rule book once and often times I find myself knowing more than the referees (I don't want to make is seem like I know everything its just that I have corrected the referees multiple times).

These rules needed to be reviewed before kick off.

Here is my suggestion, when the team review the game and discovers rule <GX> by pose some confusion/excess penalties then create a general post about basically what the rule would accomplish without revealing game clues.

For example a question for <G22> could be.

What do FIRST teams think about a rule restricting movement on the field?
I think that people could have provide helpful information that would have improved <G22. if the was done.

A question for the impeding a hurdler rule could read.

What do FIRST teams think about a rule protecting Robots who are in the process of scoring?

This way team could at least provide a Ya or Na for major game rules. I understand that is some cases this might not work but I think these are two reasonable examples.

I've been thinking about this myself, but there is a need for STRICT game secrecy. So it would need to be much more complicated/vague. I'm working on something, but I don't think it'll work as I see it right now.

The refs being past members of teams... That's something to be really careful with. 1) There are enough out there, but how many are still involved? 2) Of those, how many know the game thoroughly? 3) Many are now mentors. Do you deprive teams of mentors? 4) The inevitable--how do you deal with bias, should a ref be from a team at the event he/she is reffing? This isn't always a problem, but it can be.

Again I don't know everything that goes on when the game is created I just think that more thought needs to go into it, given the dedication to FIRST that so many of us have.

Neither do I know everything that goes into this...but before you say that more thought needs to go into this, try rewriting an old rulebook. Let's say 2005, rewriting the Loading Zone rules/penalties. Oh, and you have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight.

[Qbranch]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

I've sat through 1-1/2 regionals at the scorekeeper's table. The only people with a better view at an FRC match are the referees. I didn't see a single incident where a referee drove a robot back across a line, drawing a <G22> penalty. As far as I'm concerned, driver mistakes are changing the results of matches, not referee rulings.

word.

-q

[Valley Raider]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

I've sat through 1-1/2 regionals at the scorekeeper's table. The only people with a better view at an FRC match are the referees. I didn't see a single incident where a referee drove a robot back across a line, drawing a <G22> penalty. As far as I'm concerned, driver mistakes are changing the results of matches, not referee rulings.

I have been on the other-side as a drive for my team inn past years and what I can say is this.

1) I accept 100% of the responsibility for what happens when I'm driving the Robot on the field.
2) It is Very hard sometimes to see the Robot across the field. There are other Robots in your way and Its really hard to tell exactly how much room you have and when you cross the line. As one referee has said (seattle regional) you Robot draws a penalty the second a single atom crosses the line. That can be very hard to tell from 50+ feet away. Then there's the line penalties in Hybrid when no one not even the Robo Coach is diving.

It not the referees fault its part of the game but a ten point penalty for something that is 100% unintentional is never good.

Plus in past year the Referees have been flat out wrong about some calls on the field and have had to correct them.

I think the referees do the best they can, but sometime they just don't know the rules, not every time but sometime (SVR).