Problem with Penalties

[XaulZan11]

I think many would agree that there were too many penalties and matches decided by these penalties. I know its super hard to see your team play well in a match, lead in the real time only to find out a few minutes later that you lost due to a penalty or two. I know it turned many off on Overdrive.

I know many have proposed to change, alter or get rid of some rules to decrease the amount of matches decided by pentalties. I propose a change to the away penalties effect the game and final score. Looking at the major sports, I can only think of golf that simply takes points away from the penalized team (or in Golf add strokes). In the other sports, penalties alter the game and give the other team an advantage but doesn't directly effect the final score. In football, they move the ball foward or backward; basketball has foul shots for the other team to earn points; hockey takes a player away for a specific amount time.

To the best of my knowledge, there has always been penalties that simply deducted points from the penalized (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I'm sure there will always be penalties in FIRST, so I think we should look at how penalties effect the game. Perhaps disable the penalized robot for 5 seconds, or give the other alliance 3 seconds at the end of the match for each penalty with the other alliance disabled.

Anyway, I think simply deducting points away at the end of the match for penalties isn't the best solution. I think by giving the other team an advantage so they can earn points (instead of just being given points (by having opponents lose points)) is better.

[dtengineering]

If there were too many matches decided by penalties, I would suggest that is the fault of the teams rather than the fault of the game. I humbly suggest to those teams that do not like receiving penalties that they try very, very hard to avoid them.

We had discussions with our drive team before our first regional, and after our first penalty about how to avoid penalties, and remained largely penalty-free throughout two regionals. Yes, it did mean that we had to give up some opportunities to score points, but we did the math... taking a ten point penalty and scoring a ten point hurdle, vs. scoring a two point lap is not difficult to compare. We built our robot to score, and play the game the way it was meant to be played, rather than to try and keep other teams from scoring.

Did many teams take penalties trying to prevent us from scoring? Well, a few... perhaps not as many as should have... but that is merely because they were not following the rules (clearly explained by the referee) regarding interfering with a team attempting to hurdle.

I don't like it either when matches are decided by penalties, but in my experience (Portland, Seattle and Atlanta... not that I saw ALL the matches at these events, of course...) there were a lot of teams that either failed to keep their robot moving in a counter-clockwise direction, or decided that rather than playing the game they would try to stop someone else from playing the game. I can't blame the GDC for the poor choices of teams that do not make an effort to follow the rules. (And yes, I know these rules took effort to follow, and am very proud of our drive team for their efforts to stay within the rules and avoid penalties. It was challenging, but certainly not impossible.)

I would, however, be willing to see penalties enacted in a different fashion... for instance a ten second deactivation of a robot that "goes backwards"... or seeing the refs provided with interfaces to the scoring system so that the penalties are recorded in "real time". But there has to be some significant consequence for teams who take the "easy path" of just blocking or interfering with a team that has taken the time and effort to design a robot that is actually capable of playing the game.

I can't argue with the suggestion that there might be a better solution... but I would suggest the best solution is simply for teams to follow the rules.

Jason

[Andrew Schreiber]

My personal biggest issue wasnt our team being penalized for breaking the rules. It was our alliance being penalized when one member broke the rules. We lost matches not because we broke the rules but because our alliance members decided not to follow them. These were matches we had won but then taken away because of penalties, G22's which seemed like they were more accidents than intentional. No one gained anything from the breaking of the plane so why was it a penalty? More importantly, why did it decide the outcomes of the matches? Say I am bitter about it if you want, I probably am. All I am saying is I am a little mad that our season was so influenced by penalties on other teams.

Solutions, I cant complain without offering some solutions. One option would be to record win/loss by team. Each team gets their alliance's score - any penalties THEY committed. This way the teams that break the rules are punished but their alliances arent. Obviously in the elims this might have to change but frankly the way penalties work now is fine for elims. If you picked them you WANTED to work with them. Option 2, time delay at the beginning. Each robot accumulates x number of seconds for penalties. These are cumulative and assessed at the start of each match. Option 3, make penalty points into a ranking category. The teams with the least penalties seed higher. Probably wont make HUGE difference but if you pair it with qualifying points (qp-penalties) you might encourage teams to take less penalties when they realize it will really mess with their score.

Just some thoughts which are coming to me at this really late hour.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

As I explained in another thread I don't see the need for penalties...

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

I don't see why these are necessary.

The GDC should design games that rely on RULES not PENALTIES. If the GDC wants teams to play a game a specific way they should just say so in the rules. If teams violate the rules they should be DQ'ed or not allowed to pass inspection.

What I don't like are games where the GDC uses penalties to restrict the game play. In my mind this is like saying "Okay, we don't want you to do this, but we'll make it possible for you to get away with it." As a result, teams wind up scoring "negative points" for their alliances...

What I'm trying to say is this: the GDC should never design a game that relies on penalties. They aren't fun, they never seem fair, they make the refs jobs harder, and they make the game more confusing.

Games like 2005 and 2007 were fun becuase they had very minor penalties - the games themselves didn't rely on penalties to function. The penalties only restricted minor things, like entering the ramp zone.\

Games that rely on penalties risk failure.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

As I explained in another thread I don't see the need for penalties...




Games like 2005 and 2007 were fun becuase they had very minor penalties - the games themselves didn't rely on penalties to function. The penalties only restricted minor things, like entering the ramp zone.\

Games that rely on penalties risk failure.

They didn't rely on penalties, but in 2005 they certainly were decided by penalties on a fairly regular basis. Those 30 point penalties were practically the kiss of death, and most matches had some sort of loading zone violation.

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

If there were too many matches decided by penalties, I would suggest that is the fault of the teams rather than the fault of the game. I humbly suggest to those teams that do not like receiving penalties that they try very, very hard to avoid them.

I agree. Seriously, it isnt very hard to stop your robot from going back over the line. The penalties were not put in just for kicks, or to add another dimension to gameplay (even though they arguably did add another dimension to a team's strategy). The purpose of the penalty was to keep the teams moving in the right direction. With a penalty so harsh and with the clearly stated rules, it seems obvious to me that they want continuous flow of traffic. The penalty was designed to negate the sequence of hurdling and then passing under the overpass. If the penalties were fewer points, it would be worth it for a team to go backwards for a trackball, because after they hurdle it and get the two points for a lap they will have gained ten points. In this situation the point of the game is ruined because teams would go backwards, and there wouldn't be continuous flow of traffic in the right direction. Clearly when the game was created that is what they were trying to avoid.

My team recently competed at WPI BattleCry and they modified G22 so that the entire robot must cross over the line to get a penelty as opposed to just a small portion. With this addition to the rules hardly a single match was decided by penalties, not only that but I would bet that more than half the matches were penalty free.
Even with the penalties I still think overdrive was a great game, it was really exciting, and seriously, has there ever been a game piece as great as a trackball.

[StephLee]

I agree that the best solution is for teams to follow the rules more effectively; however, if this were practical, penalties wouldn't be part of the game in the first place.

I do think having an entire alliance penalized by one robot's erroneous actions is an area that could be dealt with a little more "fairly". I'm hesitant to say fairly, because one could easily argue that being paired with a penalty-happy partner is part of the luck of the draw, and since it could happen to any team, it is not unfair. However, it definitely contributes to the teams' perceptions of unfairness, and thus often takes something away from their experience at a given competition.

I do agree that, with certain games, alternate solutions for awarding penalties than simply taking away points could be considered. This year, however, it wouldn't be very feasible to have an offending robot disabled for a few seconds, with the track as narrow as it sometimes became anyway. That type of penalty, again, would have added a new dimension of strategy - a disabled robot can't recieve an impeding penalty, and what would have stopped an alliance from purposely disabling themselves across a single line at a strategic moment for the other alliance?

My point is, penalties of ANY kind will severely affect the playing style and evolution of any game - and I'm positive the GDC considers this when they're creating a new game.

[Steve W]

To have a rule without a penalty is rather useless. As many have seen with the robot rules and others that no penalty was expressed, they were not followed. To tell someone that they cannot speed does not stop them. Heck they speed even with penalties. People will always break the rules, penalties are a reinforcement of expectations.

People are saying it isn't fair if your team loses because of penalties to another team on your alliance. If that is so them maybe you shouldn't win when other teams on your alliance score points for your team. The alliances are teams. Teams work together to make the best results that they can. All for one and one for all. You cannot separate only parts of it out. We must always do our best to help other teams work within the alliance so that we can get the best results. I know that we can't pick our partners in Qualifying rounds but we can't always pick who we work with in our life outside of FIRST. Learning to accept that we are a team, working toward a common goal with the resources that we have available is sometimes a huge challenge. It is one that FIRST put there and that is all around in the workforce. How you respond tells what you are made of.

[thefro526]

Eliminating Penalties would be nearly impossible in most FRC games. Most years there aren't too many, just the normal ones like ramming, pinning and tipping. Those are going to be required in any game so having a ten point penalty for those is understandable.

The Game specific ones are the ones that usually will decide matches. In '05 there was the loading zone violation, '06 had the corner goal incursion penalty, '07 there was the Chute/Wall penalty, and this year we had the hurdling interference and line crossing violations. IMO after driving or operating or coaching in all of these games except '05, I found that the basic penalties will rarely be broken after a teams first few matches and when they are they're broken on purpose or the team knows that they've broken it. Most of the Game specific ones are broken throughout the season though. Especially this year because of how tight the field gets and how fast the robots are.

I like the Idea by the Original Poster of having a time penalty. I think it would have been interesting to see brief disables during matches for certain penalties. Perhaps G22 could've been done that way this year if the system would've allowed for it. (I'm not sure if you can disable and then re-enable a robot in the same match with the current field). For example, my team crosses the lane divider backwards and we get disabled or frozen for 5 seconds. It'll still have a decent affect on scores because all of us know what can happen in 5 seconds. Who knows 5 seconds could be the that last second ramp, those 3 final poof balls, one more tetra or that final hurdle. -It's just a thought though

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Originally Posted by Steve W

To have a rule without a penalty is rather useless. As many have seen with the robot rules and others that no penalty was expressed, they were not followed. To tell someone that they cannot speed does not stop them. Heck they speed even with penalties. People will always break the rules, penalties are a reinforcement of expectations.

FIRST has plenty of rules without penalties. For instance, your only allowed 4 CIMs on the robot. You can't slap an extra CIM on there in return for an extra 10 pt. penalty every match... That would be crazy...

I'm not saying they should design a game with NO penalties. I'm just saying they should design a game that doesn't RELY on penalties. If you go back and look at all the games you'll see that there have been plenty that didn't rely on penalties.

[Andrew141WOBOT]

I don't think that disabling penalized robots during the match or adding extra time would do anything because they would just get in the way of other robots that were not penalized. Adding time onto the end of the match would be too hard because it always takes time for the referees to count up the penalties at the end of the match, they would probably make mistakes if they were trying to do it during a match

[Ryan Foley]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Perhaps disable the penalized robot for 5 seconds, or give the other alliance 3 seconds at the end of the match for each penalty with the other alliance disabled.

Anyway, I think simply deducting points away at the end of the match for penalties isn't the best solution. I think by giving the other team an advantage so they can earn points (instead of just being given points (by having opponents lose points)) is better.

In a perfect world, where all rule violations are blatantly obvious, this would work well. However, rule violations aren't always blatant. Adding in penalties after a match gives the referees time to discuss what they saw, and compare notes on the match.

Consider this scenario: One ref (Ref A) is responsible for watching the portion of the blue lane beyond the blue overpass, giving him/her a great view of the lane marker. The ref (Ref B) across the field, in the red homestretch, sees a robot cross back over the lane marker, and calls a penalty. Ref A sees the same thing, but notices that the robot never actually crossed all the way over the line to begin with, thus no penalty. With the disabling method you suggest, Ref B would have disabled the robot, even though the robot committed no penalty. The refs get harassed enough as it is, imagine how much worse it could get with this scenario.

The time that referees have to discuss things after a match is key to keeping the officiating accurate and consistent. That is probably why there are only a handful of rule violations that currently result in a robot being disabled (safety, touching a human, or coach touching the controls). The current disabling-violations are pretty blatant, so it's easy for a ref to call.

I do agree with you though, penalties were too common in this game. Part of that responsibility (if not most of it) lies with the teams though. I know of quite a few teams that went penalty free at regionals.

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by Steve W

People are saying it isn't fair if your team loses because of penalties to another team on your alliance. If that is so them maybe you shouldn't win when other teams on your alliance score points for your team.

You couldn't be more right.

Messing up your alliance and having them mad at you is even more incentive not to break the rules. It's just the way FIRST is, you have to work as a team and try as hard as you can to help your team and not mess them up.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

FIRST has plenty of rules without penalties. For instance, your only allowed 4 CIMs on the robot. You can't slap an extra CIM on there in return for an extra 10 pt. penalty every match... That would be crazy...

I'm not saying they should design a game with NO penalties. I'm just saying they should design a game that doesn't RELY on penalties. If you go back and look at all the games you'll see that there have been plenty that didn't rely on penalties.

Actually there is a penalty. If you have 5 CIM's then you can't compete. What tougher penalty is there?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

FIRST has plenty of rules without penalties. For instance, your only allowed 4 CIMs on the robot. You can't slap an extra CIM on there in return for an extra 10 pt. penalty every match... That would be crazy...

I beg to differ. The penaly for the above infraction is to not get qualified (IE no inspection sticker) or a DQ if found later on. I see this as a far stricter penalty

Now back to XaulZan11's initial post.

I agree that there were far too many penalties this year, but I do not blame the game or the rules. I, instead, lay the blame on the teams that did not take into consideration that those rules might be strictly enforced and built their robot without taking into account that not being able to completely control your robot might actually hurt your alliance.

In the 15 matchs that 1824 played in, we got 1 penalty (yeah a <G22>). Yet we lost many matches because our alliance partners got many (as many as 4 ).

The only issue I have with the penalties this year was that for some teams it was better if they didn't show up (scorewise). And that is just plain wrong.