paper: The Penalties will continue until Morale Improves

[Jim Zondag]

Wow!.....Wow!!
Great job on this paper.
It is great to hear this from the referee perspective and you have a tremendous amount of excellent details on the long history of the progression of this problem. I agree that 2008 was the beginning of the dark times for rules. The good core game design of the past 3 years kind of mask this, since the penalties were more of a sidebar, hiding how bad the penalty rules actually were, since they were more avoidable.

I have always felt that the core problem with this entire topic is a volume thing. FIRST keeps adding rules in an attempt to control gameplay. As a result, the refs are overburdened watching trivial things with black and white definitions and not properly policing the grey areas of robot interaction with their full attention. Your perspective seems to reflect this same observation.

This is what happens when Engineers try to design a sport. Engineering is all about strict rules and controls, sports are all about fair play, motivation, balance. There are lots of grey areas in sports, and this is why we need refs. Not for black and white, we need them most for the grey.

If you are a runner in baseball and you get hit with a ball, are you out or are you safe? It depends where the ball came from. Refs decide.

If your opponent's ball lands in your machine in Aerial Assist, do you get a penalty? Yes, always, even with the rules modifications. Fail. It should depend on where it came from. If an opponents rebound lands in your robot, why is this your team's fault?

All rules in an interactive game MUST have situational dependency. This is what the refs should watch, not the HPs finger tips.

FIRST likes rules. They have lots of rules about how to build robots, lots of rules about how to make bumpers, lots of rules about when you can work on your robot, lots of rules about how to get penalties on the field; rules, rules, rules, rules, rules. I think on this topic, less is more in every category. Most of these rules add little actual value and just make everything more difficult for all of us.

Quote of the day from your paper:
"most teams would rather have chaotic good rules rather than lawful evil rules."
Amen brother!

In about 4 weeks, the new VEX game will be released in Anaheim. I would bet $1000 that there will not be any 50 point tech fouls in their game. The VEX GDC has ACTUAL competitors on the team, so their rules make sense. Just sayin'

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

Wow!.....Wow!!
Great job on this paper.
It is great to hear this from the referee perspective and you have a tremendous amount of excellent details on the long history of the progression of this problem. I agree that 2008 was the beginning of the dark times for rules. The good core game design of the past 3 years kind of mask this, since the penalties were more of a sidebar, hiding how bad the penalty rules actually were, since they were more avoidable.

I have always felt that the core problem with this entire topic is a volume thing. FIRST keeps adding rules in an attempt to control gameplay. As a result, the refs are overburdened watching trivial things with black and white definitions and not properly policing the grey areas of robot interaction with their full attention. Your perspective seems to reflect this same observation.

This is what happens when Engineers try to design a sport. Engineering is all about strict rules and controls, sports are all about fair play, motivation, balance. There are lots of grey areas in sports, and this is why we need refs. Not for black and white, we need them most for the grey.

If you are a runner in baseball and you get hit with a ball, are you out or are you safe? It depends where the ball came from. Refs decide.

If your opponent's ball lands in your machine in Aerial Assist, do you get a penalty? Yes, always, even with the rules modifications. Fail. It should depend on where it came from. If an opponents rebound lands in your robot, why is this your team's fault?

All rules in an interactive game MUST have situational dependency. This is what the refs should watch, not the HPs finger tips.

FIRST likes rules. They have lots of rules about how to build robots, lots of rules about how to make bumpers, lots of rules about when you can work on your robot, lots of rules about how to get penalties on the field; rules, rules, rules, rules, rules. I think on this topic, less is more in every category. Most of these rules add little actual value and just make everything more difficult for all of us.

Quote of the day from your paper:
"most teams would rather have chaotic good rules rather than lawful evil rules."
Amen brother!

In about 4 weeks, the new VEX game will be released in Anaheim. I would bet $1000 that there will not be any 50 point tech fouls in their game. The VEX GDC has ACTUAL competitors on the team, so their rules make sense. Just sayin'

Jim, if you were to design this years game with "chaotic good rules" rather than "lawful mean rules," what kinds of rules would you make?

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Jim, if you were to design this years game with "chaotic good rules" rather than "lawful mean rules," what kinds of rules would you make?

Perhaps for possession to be called, the robot would have to complete the process of the catch.

[BJC]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Jim, if you were to design this years game with "chaotic good rules" rather than "lawful mean rules," what kinds of rules would you make?

I'm not Jim but I have thought about this enough that I can give a non-comprehensive answer.



1. It shouldn't matter what zone a robot is in for an assist to count.

- When a robot first acquires a ball that is currently considered a 0 point assist. This should simply be nothing. As such only 2 assists would be possible per cycle.

-For simplicity, each assist should be the same (10 or 15) number of points.

-For simplicity, each assist should be scored when it happens.

--This new assisting method is much more intuitive for teams, spectators, and refs. Trying to control where the assists happen via field lines is dumb and a non-obvious thing to be looking out for. Did the ball go between those two robot? Now its an assist, no questions asked.

2. Increase catching points to 20-25 points.

--Catching is one of the most exciting things to watch in this game, however, it is undercosted versus it difficulty to execute.

3. Eliminate hot goals in auto, but allow assists.

--Aside from not relying on software to properly display lights, taking the idea of assists in teleop and reusing it for auto rather than introducing new scoring methods (hot goal) keeps the scoring simpler to understand and keep track of. Plus, seeing all three robots pass their balls around to each other twice before scoring would be awesome.

4. Human players should be allowed to hold balls near the side of the field rather than waiting by the pedestal.

-Human players would use their eyes and common sense to watch when a cycle ends and determine if they can start a new one.

-A foul would be called for entering a third ball into play and repeatedly doing so would be a red card.

--This will decrease the amount of time robots spend waiting for balls.

5. Two balls should be allowed on the field at a time.

--Currently only one robot can play offense at a time. Two balls should allow at least two of an alliance's robots to stay occupied attempting to score points. This, in turn, will decrease the amount of defense played and make everything faster paced more enjoyable to watch.

6. Move human player areas further from the field or make use of a polycarboate wall.

-Their should be no foul for a robot extending 20" (legal amount) outside the field.

--Safety related penalties can be completely avoided through good game design. Almost all collecting designs force robots to extend outside their bumper zone. If we don't want robots to be able to touch humans then no humans should be allowed within 2ft of the field, simple as that. Especially when considering that the field is 3ft narrower than usual this year this should not be difficult to implement.

7. A robot with a ball cannot be given a robot interaction penalty while attempting to score.

--Teams should never be given penalties for attempting to complete the game challenge.


I think my most controversial change would be adding a second ball to gameplay which could make keeping track of assists and such tricky. However, allowing more than one robot to be playing offense at a time is absolutely critical to having a successful game and naturally mitigates defense without additional rules. If necessary, I would sacrifice other aspects of the game in order to achieve this.

Again, not comprehensive.
Cheers, Bryan

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

I have always felt that the core problem with this entire topic is a volume thing. FIRST keeps adding rules in an attempt to control gameplay. As a result, the refs are overburdened watching trivial things with black and white definitions and not properly policing the grey areas of robot interaction with their full attention. Your perspective seems to reflect this same observation.

This is what happens when Engineers try to design a sport. Engineering is all about strict rules and controls, sports are all about fair play, motivation, balance. There are lots of grey areas in sports, and this is why we need refs. Not for black and white, we need them most for the grey.

If you are a runner in baseball and you get hit with a ball, are you out or are you safe? It depends where the ball came from. Refs decide.

If your opponent's ball lands in your machine in Aerial Assist, do you get a penalty? Yes, always, even with the rules modifications. Fail. It should depend on where it came from. If an opponents rebound lands in your robot, why is this your team's fault?

All rules in an interactive game MUST have situational dependency. This is what the refs should watch, not the HPs finger tips.

That's true to a point, but I think it's possible to swing it too far in the direction you propose. Add too many situational dependencies, too many judgments of intent, and you end up with something like a boxing score, where it's often impossible to discern what the judges were thinking. Every difficult judgment presents an opportunity for inconsistency, and FIRST competitors are certainly quick to decry inconsistent officiation.

Maybe the real issue with the ball possession penalty is that it could have been disincentivized rather than penalized. Penalties imply an infraction, and the conversation is naturally about equity: who was wronged? Disincentives don't have to be about that at all. It could simply have been a feature of the game that if an opponent's ball lands in your robot, for any reason at all, you lose some points—and get to control that ball for a while.¹ Teams will have no reason to feel wronged (as they do now), and will instead develop designs and strategies to avoid that situation. What's more, it would be easy for the referees to judge.

You're certainly right that too much of the referees' attention is devoted to trivialities.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

FIRST likes rules. They have lots of rules about how to build robots, lots of rules about how to make bumpers, lots of rules about when you can work on your robot, lots of rules about how to get penalties on the field; rules, rules, rules, rules, rules. I think on this topic, less is more in every category. Most of these rules add little actual value and just make everything more difficult for all of us.

Definitely true, and definitely something that they need to address. The rules should be as exact as possible where precision adds value, and as lenient as possible where a general constraint would satisfy the rulemakers' intent.

The rules for bumpers and pneumatics have awful return on investment, and are long overdue for an overhaul.

¹ Obviously this would have to be studied in the context of the game as a whole, because it might lead to certain strategies dominating. I don't propose it as a hypothetical remedy for Aerial Assist, but merely offer it as an example of a different way of managing gameplay behaviour.

[fb39ca4]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

The rules for bumpers and pneumatics have awful return on investment, and are long overdue for an overhaul.

I have no experience with pneumatics, but why do you say bumper rules are subpar?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by fb39ca4

I have no experience with pneumatics, but why do you say bumper rules are subpar?

Don't get me wrong: the bumper rules have improved markedly each of the last couple years. 5 years ago they were basically a travesty. (Here are some of my suggestions from that era; I would still stand by most of that. I grant that there has been a lot more robot violence this year, which increases the utility of a bumper.)

Despite the improvements, there are still too many vague bumper rules. Bumpers are fundamentally overspecified for the limited purpose they serve, and yet those specifications are often underdefined or (more so historically) contradictory. This is hard to understand and hard to enforce fairly and with a straight face¹ and leads to a lot of effort (on the part of teams and officials), for very little benefit.

It has long been my experience that bumpers and pneumatics take up a disproportionate amount of a lead inspector's time, because those rule sets are the ones most likely to require complex interpretations that turn on very fine details. They are consequently the most controversial, and therefore induce the most argumentation and the most animosity.

¹ As an inspector, I've been criticized, understandably, for rigourously enforcing useless bumper requirements like frame perimeter support. Some inspectors didn't enforce that rule—again understandably, because it was stupid—but this led to inconsistency between events.

[GaryVoshol]

Dan, how did you forget minibots? Those sensors worked flawlessly too.

I love your "Do I look like an idiot?" rule.

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Dan, how did you forget minibots? Those sensors worked flawlessly too.

I love your "Do I look like an idiot?" rule.

I thought about that, but it didn't neatly fit into my narrative, & I didn't pay enough attention that year to be able to analyse it carefully.

There need to be at least "DILLaI" rule in FIRST each year.

Originally Posted by cglrcng

Hope to see you back officiating in the future

Doubt it. The Return on Investment is definitely not worth it this year, & I'm having much more fun doing www.TheRoboShow.net. Out of the problems in FIRST I have the abilities to fix, I rank them as 1) New Media, 2) Regional Planning, 3) Inspecting, 4) DJs, 5) Refs.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Despite the improvements, there are still too many vague bumper rules.

I think the bumper situation can be fixed with one little statement:
"Any deviations to these bumper rules that are deemed by the LRI to be more rigid or a higher quality than the written rules can be allowed on a regional to regional basis."

This would mean a team that has a superior bumper configuration doesn't have to scramble to recreate bumpers in a lower quality, but still indicates this is a temporary solution & protects LRI's from the criticism "The last regional let me do it"

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

This is what happens when Engineers try to design a sport. Engineering is all about strict rules and controls, sports are all about fair play, motivation, balance. There are lots of grey areas in sports, and this is why we need refs. Not for black and white, we need them most for the grey.

This either makes me a really good engineer or a really bad one, because I don't try to control what I design, I try to work around and anticipate alternatives. I design with the assumption that I will have to change the design quickly at some time, and so try to make things easy to adjust to.

The inherent reason FIRST has so many rules is to take the inconsistency out of the officiating. When issues are black & white, there's no room for interpretation, and therefore you have a more consistent result, regardless of the quality of that result.

The reason why the officiating is that the officials are inconsistent. In Major League sports, you have an official who's job is to critique the other officials, insure they're doing their job correctly, offer improvements. As the head ref gets more & more responsibilities lately, you don't have enough time or eyes to do enough critiquing of the referees under your command. From the regionals I have seen around the country, I've seen certain referees consistently calling penalties wrong, or sometimes even blatantly calling things in favor of their own teams. These usually concern defensive strategies.

But instead of improving volunteer quality, or designing a game that discourages defense (such as the past few years, IMHO), they go with more rules to micromanage teams & referee calls.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Dan, how did you forget minibots? Those sensors worked flawlessly too.

I love your "Do I look like an idiot?" rule.

Minibots would have been much more interesting if you could deploy them onto the tower at any point in a match but if they hit the top trigger before the last ten seconds the tower is disabled.

Bam, no more refs and drivers needing microsecond judgement accuracy for determining if a deployment was legal or not. It also would have been interesting since you wouldn't necessarily need to use a 1 second screamer to do well.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Minibots would have been much more interesting if you could deploy them onto the tower at any point in a match but if they hit the top trigger before the last ten seconds the tower is disabled.

Bam, no more refs and drivers needing microsecond judgement accuracy for determining if a deployment was legal or not. It also would have been interesting since you wouldn't necessarily need to use a 1 second screamer to do well.

Best improvement I've read with regards to 2011. Electronics nerds would go nuts!

[F Elliott]

Interesting reads, this paper and the original "Spanking the Children".

This year I was a rookie FTC coach with a rookie team. FIRST FTC is a tremendously valuable and important STEM opportunity for my students. There is nothing to compare. I am an "all in" FIRST Evangelist. I was a bit overwhelmed by the FTC rules and procedures but we worked our way through them.

My administration is encouraging me to "think big" and not rule out an FRC team in the future. Last month I spent a day observing and walking the pits at the Dallas FRC Regionals. Very exciting. Had no clue what was going on.

My biggest reluctance to dive into FRC has stemmed from the funding and infrastructure hurdle I sense exists. Having now read these two papers only confirms my reluctance to get into FRC. Rookie teams can easily get chewed up and spit out by this entire process. What would my students learn from that?

Rookie teams have few resources, spares, or fabrication capability. Every part, every component is precious to us and the kids. To see their robots destroyed or broken on the field of play is a harsh lesson to learn for a kid trying to nurture their dream to become a STEM professional. "Get tough" is schoolyard bullying. "Losing makes you stronger" is bad Little League. As educators, we are better than this.

Struggling with a online encyclopedia of build and games rules --- written by a collection of professional engineers and lawyers --- creates a confused thicket of confusion and substitute logic in the minds of a student. In response, they come up with and do all kinds of stuff no "sensible" adult ever imagines. If you want designs and game play to make sense, write them for the kids, not the adults.

Just a rookie outsider's thoughts. As I said, I'm "all in" with FIRST.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by F Elliott

Struggling with a online encyclopedia of build and games rules --- written by a collection of professional engineers and lawyers --- creates a confused thicket of confusion and substitute logic in the minds of a student. In response, they come up with and do all kinds of stuff no "sensible" adult ever imagines. If you want designs and game play to make sense, write them for the kids, not the adults.

Generally I agree that the rules are tough to interpret the first time through. However, with more students and more mentors it is very easy to get the hang of it. You will want to scale up on all fronts, including mentors, fundraising, and as many students as you and your mentors can handle. Seeking help from local teams to bounce ideas off of their heads is a really great idea. As for the robot holding up - the kitbot this year is pretty beasty. The only oversight I see with a lot of young teams (in my region at least) is lack of full-perimeter bumpers. Full bumpers isn't a necessity every year, but this year the game is very rough without them.

When you do get ready to dive in, watch this. It's a great guide for not stretching your team's resources too thin during an FRC season while having wild success.

[cglrcng]

An absolutely great paper! Kudos.

It is really nice to know from a Ref's. point of view, that I'm not actually crazy in absolutely disliking the majority of the "rules of this particular game"...Love the game and actually excited about watching it... from home...IF it is played as intended & designed on the field. As a coopertition among your own alliance type game (with some good zone type defense when you are not offensively on the ball, and there has been some really good matches, just not enough)....But, it is also a whole bunch of battle bots in a major way.

It may get a bit better this week though...We'll see.

Hope to see you back officiating in the future.