String Theory: <G22> at the Championships

[sanddrag]

Question!

Out of 10 quite large, fast moving, and exciting objects moving all about the field, are the referees really going to notice your string trailing behind when you accidentally swing your arm over and break the plane? Play the game as it was intended people. Keep em movin.

[Mike Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Valley Raider

The point I am trying to make is that the game rules tend to be over complicated.

actually its not the GDC that makes these rules "over complicated" its people like you and everyone else that has tried to lawyer the rules in the past, i have seen situation in the past where teams have tried to lawyer their way past rules which have forced the GDC to make very clear rules which i think for the most part they did a good job this year. but then again you can call me old fashioned cause i remember a time when FIRST and the GDC used to make games, not rules and teams used to play these games, not played around them . so if FIRST teams as a whole have a problem maybe they should look to themselves and ask if maybe they aren't the reason for such rules

*throws in $.02*
heh back in my day those $.02 were worth more....

[EricVanWyk]

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've been noticing an unfortunate growth in the number of posts in the same vein as the one from Valley Raider that Dave has reacted to. It really boggles the mind to think how flippantly someone can write off years of dedication and effort from the FIRST folk. Can we please at least try to exercise some level of civility?

Everyone makes mistakes. Before you call someone out on their mistake, make darn certain it is one, and make darn certain that you do so in a constructive manner.

If this trend continues, you can expect the FIRST folk to stop reading Chief Delphi altogether, at which point you will have lost your voice.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by EricVanWyk

If this trend continues, you can expect the FIRST folk to stop reading Chief Delphi altogether, at which point you will have lost your voice.

This thought could be carried a bit further (not necessarily in reaction to posts in this thread but in reaction to posts in general)..you will have lost your voice and the ears/attention of those whose opinions and knowledge are valued and necessary.

I often think of the aspect of exploration when I think of FIRST. My thinking is - engineers, scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, professors, business minds, inventors, and others - embark on the game design/reveal each year bringing along a boatload of students, professionals, volunteers, sponsors on the voyage. The game is designed to the best of the GDC's abilities and is first seen in action at the first regionals of the competition season. It is there that the rules reveal their strength. Sometimes beforehand and sometimes during the first regionals, the rules are tweaked but, by and large, they endure. They stand. Exploration is a big part of FIRST. If it were not, we would be given the same game year after year after year. If it were not, we would not continue to raise the bar, deepen the impact of FIRST on each other, our communities, and science and technology. Systems have been set up to work with and through in this aspect of FIRST - the Q&A formally, ChiefDelphi informally. How cool is that, that there are systems in place for direct input and direct feedback? The ears of the GDC and their attention to our questions, our enthusiasm, our frustrations - are a very important part of each year of development in the world of FIRST. Using our voices wisely and soundly, enrich the experience and help in this development, keeping exploration alive and well. I like that a lot.

[Shadow503]

It sounds good in theory, but it might affect hybrid mode performance. I'd recommend using a servo or spare CIM to reel it out at the beginning of tele-op.

[Greg Needel]

Originally Posted by Valley Raider

<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.

The problem with your logic is you assume that the rule wasn't analyzed. The "G22 Issue" wasn't even viewed as a problem until the first scrimmages. And it was only through game play that it was, or could be discovered. So the question here is would you want a major rule change after build season? As you stated in your posts one of your biggest complaints is major rule changes.

Now I personally don't think there is any problem with G22. If drivers took that extra second to be careful (or just make sure there is space in front of them before they move forward) there would be no G22 penalties.

As for your statements about referees I will restate what has been said in other threads. Referees are volunteers, and they do make mistakes. It is not that big of a deal most of the time the mistakes get fixed. Even though it sucks to get penalties called (or not called for that matter) you have the same likelihood of getting a good or bad call as everyone else at the event. As someone who has been a ref and a head ref it is extremely difficult to manage everything going on in the game and until teams decide not to break the rules flags will continue to be thrown. I know you are still in High School but when you get a bit older I urge you to go referee and event and see if your opinions of them stay the same.

Along with that last fact, complaining about the process doesn't accomplish anything. What you need to do is graduate high school and then start volunteering at events to get involved in the process, as it is only through action will anything change. If you think the refs are bad then become one, if you don't like the game design process go work for FIRST when you graduate college. Until then rest assured that the GDC and Referees and the rest of FIRST do the best they can in the time they have to provide a quality program which is ultimately the point. I highly doubt you could honestly say that your negative experiences with one or two minor rules changed the long term benefits you got from this program.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Shadow503

It sounds good in theory, but it might affect hybrid mode performance. I'd recommend using a servo or spare CIM to reel it out at the beginning of tele-op.

Yea I was just thinking about this. And then, what about the times where it's more momentarily beneficial for you to drive backwards across the line? It seems that it's better in teleop and you'd need more than 1 strung noodle.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Out of 10 quite large, fast moving, and exciting objects moving all about the field, are the referees really going to notice your string trailing behind when you accidentally swing your arm over and break the plane?

The referees are pretty good at spotting the corner of your bumper fabric going back over the line, so a string should be no trouble whatsoever.

[Ashburn]

In the hopes of bringing some clarification regarding the origination and potential consequences of my "string theory," I would like to address a few of the things people have brought up and revise my suggestion somewhat.

Many posts have brought up the issue of potential entanglement with the string and other robots (or even, potentially, one's own robot). This is no doubt a pressing concern. However, I think with proper choice of materials, this worry could be put to rest. I would recommend either of two materials to serve as the "string":
1) High-visibility, sturdy nylon/polyester/etc. rope such as this.
2) Jump rope. High-visibility jump rope is easy to find. Both cord and segmented jump rope have potential.

Disclaimer: Only experiment can confirm or deny my suspicion that this sort of rope will pose minimal entanglement hazard.


I believe Mr. LaFleur was the first to bring up the issue of contact outside of the bumper zone. This does not, in and of itself, seem to be a major problem, as <G37> explicitly states that incidental contact will not be penalized. It is certainly the case that any contact with the rope and other robots will be incidental, as the rope is entirely passive.


QBranch was the first to mention that better driving would negate the use for alternative solutions to avoiding <G22> penalties. I could not agree more, but I feel that this is perhaps an oversimplification. This year's game is, as always, an exciting and fast-paced 2-minute adventure designed to challenge our creativity and skill at designing, building, and driving a robot. The challenge of driving cannot be overstated. As per the OPR statistics that can be found here. A number of teams have been on the receiving end of plenty of penalties. This is not meant to disparage anyone, because I have seen just how difficult it is to know where your robot is, relative to the lane-marker, when it is on the opposite side of the field and other robots are in the way. Clearly there are teams who might be seeking to reduce their <G22> infractions, but do not have a practice bot with which to improve their driving skill.


Mr. Tyler said:

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>.

I respectfully disagree. Firstly, the rationale behind my "string theory" was to provide a back-up system that reduces penalties (good for everyone) and increases driver confidence (they are operating in a very high stress situation, after all). Secondly, the idea simply popped into my head the other day, it was not the result of hours of trying to find a way to weasel around the rules. I think it would be wise for everyone to recognize, however, that the situation on the field is often such that knowing if you have already crossed the lane marker on the opposite side of the field is very difficult. Driver skill is critical, but many teams have not had a great deal of practice driving their robots. Again, this was meant to provide a helpful buffer zone that would allow drivers to focus on more pressing matters than the exact location of their robot's back bumper.


In conclusion, much has been said thus far, but I believe no one has yet demonstrated, outright, the infeasibility of this idea. I hope some team out there tries it and finds it to be useful. Good luck teams!

[proegssilb]

<off topic>
Remember that blind spot on the opposite side of the field? I think only the drivers have the right to say how much good driving helps or doesn't help. I'll agree with anyone who says good driving helps, but I have to disagree with those who say it is the only thing you need, unless that person happens to be a driver, preferably one who has driven both penalty-free matches and G22-penalty matches.

As for G22 being a good/bad rule, the contents of it were mentioned in the intro video. Based on that, I suspect it is an important rule. I can't think of a better way to deal with it. You can't measure 1% of a robot, you can't say the bot has to go at least 6" over the line before G22 kicks in. The best you can do is make a second "G22 Line" that causes G22 to kick in, but even then, that gets a little tricky, mostly in location and practicality. Fixing G22 is almost worse than letting it be, or so I believe, with my very limited experience as a team member. Either way, I am sure the GDC thought of everything I have, and decided to go with G22 as it is for some reason that they may or may not choose to tell us, although I would be interested in their thought process in regard to that rule.
</off topic>

The string idea shouldn't be necessary, but G22 is the way it is. If your team needs that little bit of extra help, the string might be the way to go. It isn't necessary, based on the West Michigan matches, but I don't see why it should be a problem other than contact outside the bumper zone (that should be addressed by QA)

(My apologies if this isn't the best post ever)

[Herodotus]

Originally Posted by proegssilb

<off topic>
Remember that blind spot on the opposite side of the field? I think only the drivers have the right to say how much good driving helps or doesn't help. I'll agree with anyone who says good driving helps, but I have to disagree with those who say it is the only thing you need, unless that person happens to be a driver, preferably one who has driven both penalty-free matches and G22-penalty matches.

I fit the criteria. I've driven in both kinds of matches, mostly the former, and I have to say even the best driver is going to make mistakes. I didn't keep track, but I believe I have four G22 penalties. Only one was intentional, and that was to try to get our partners unstuck from the overpass. I personally wish the rule was changed so that your entire robot had to pass back over the line to count as a G22, or maybe you had to be over the line for 3 seconds or so for it to count, something like that. But like I said in another post, we play their game, not ours. Ultimately, however we feel about the rules, we still have to follow them.

That said, I think making a mechanical solution to a driver problem is perfectly acceptable. It would be well within the rules, and would simply be using ingenuity to solve a genuine problem. Rules like this can simply be another hurdle(no pun intended) to overcome.

But how is this for a solution? Put a color sensor on the back of your robot. Once it has determined you've passed the line it won't let the robot move backwards until it's moved forward somewhat.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by proegssilb

<off topic>
Remember that blind spot on the opposite side of the field? I think only the drivers have the right to say how much good driving helps or doesn't help. I'll agree with anyone who says good driving helps, but I have to disagree with those who say it is the only thing you need, unless that person happens to be a driver, preferably one who has driven both penalty-free matches and G22-penalty matches.

After hybrid, our robocoach looked fairly bored at VCU. So for Philly, we put him on the other side of the field to watch our blind spot for us. With some creative hand signals and bright gloves, that particular region on the field was no longer "blind". I was the coach behind the drivers and it was my job to not only watch the "big picture" but also the hand signals and communicate them to my drivers. I'd say this worked very well, as we didn't receive a single penalty in Philly. Hence, good driving isn't the only thing you need, yet string theory is just another alternative to the options available that help us cope with <G22>.

[Samuel H.]

I actually had a similar idea, but instead of a rope, just have a pool noodle hanging off the back. At the beginning of the match it falls down.

Pool noodles would both avoid entanglement concerns, as well as visibility.

Our robot is not going to the Championship, but if we were I would recommend this to our team.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by JesseK

After hybrid, our robocoach looked fairly bored at VCU. So for Philly, we put him on the other side of the field to watch our blind spot for us. With some creative hand signals and bright gloves, that particular region on the field was no longer "blind". I was the coach behind the drivers and it was my job to not only watch the "big picture" but also the hand signals and communicate them to my drivers. I'd say this worked very well, as we didn't receive a single penalty in Philly. Hence, good driving isn't the only thing you need, yet string theory is just another alternative to the options available that help us cope with <G22>.

My team did that after practice matches. The robot wasn't ready, so we sent the drive team out for the first one. Afterwards, we discussed the hole in visibility... and the robocoach broke out the colored tape and a pair of gloves.

We weren't the only team to do this.

[XXShadowXX]

You people really need to give it up, after Sunday there will be a whole new game.

<G22> was made to keep the game flowing in a certain direction, therefore if you are using this as a excuse to go backwards you are violating the the spirt of the rule which is as bad as violating the rule it self, there is no way around it. Just accept the rules and move on.


These games are designed to be hard not easy, and to drivers, challenging. Rules are not made to be broken, but followed. If there were loopholes would we would not have half the fun.
Likewise everyminute we spend lawyer the rules we loose scouting and planning time that many teams desperatly need.