Are The Penalties Too High?

[Rob]

I don't think that the penalties are too high. FIRST wanted to discourage certain behaviors. Many teams do not take the time to avoid the impact of penalties, but they should. It is very easy to avoid penalties, just have you human player take care, and watch how you play defense. It is easy to play a certain style of defense and naver have to put the refs in a situation where they have to make a call.

I just think that penalties are easy to avoid if you prepare for them. Teams should spend more time talking about how to avoid penalties during their strategy sessions.

Good luck to everyone, and lets keep it penalty-free!

Rob

[Rob Colatutto]

As a ref, looking back at old rules and remembering my experiences last year, I would say the penalties are too high. Surely everyone remembers the 2002 game, where at first you got "a warning" then you would get a 1 point penalty if the refs thought you acknowledged that they didn't like what you were doing and you continued to do so. Then last years 10 point penalties, which I'll admit did make sense from a safety standpoint. But a little bit less this year than last year. Maybe the penalty system should be toned down a little bit, or maybe the game should be designed in a way such that penalties don't need to be given for safety reasons. Who am I to judge though, all I do is ref them and enjoy building. Just a bit of insight relative to older games of FIRST past.
-Rob

[Ashley Weed]

As stated earlier, the penalties are so drastic in "size" that it really puts a damper on your scouting techniques. An excellent team could be paired up in as little as three matches, where they are hit with one 30 point penalty in each, and loose all three matches, and therefore fall in overall rankings. When the game was originally designed, I don't think it was realized that the scores would be on an average of 40 points on the high side, and 20 points on the low side per match. If the first week regionals high scores of 70 points on the low side, to 90 points on the high end of the scale become our average for scoring over the next week, then this could self-correct the scoring situation. However, with the penalties being as high as 30, and the scores so low, we can all just be grateful that scores aren't negated in this years competition.

[Joshua May]

Nope, as Andy Baker said, the penalties are all part of the challenge of the game, its just one more obstacle to overcome and challenge us a little more, as well as keep the all-important safety of the robots and people.

[omutton]

I wouldn't say that the penalties ruin the game, they make the game more interesting and the penalties determine who wins in most matches. There are certainly a lot more being given out this year, but they also make the drivers and human players be more aware.

[Beth Sweet]

I don't think that the penalties are too high, I think teams need to learn to play the game by the rules. Penalties are part of this year's strategy. Maybe this game is a bit more complicated than we would like to think...

[Bridgette]

I don't think the penalties are too high either. My team is known for being somewhat aggressive in its defense, but we had no problem following the rules. Everyone on the drive team knew what would cause a penalty and we avoided them. It's that simple. I know that mistakes happen sometimes (we got a 10-pt penalty that we didn't deserve), but the refs' decisions are final. Everyone has to follow the rules, and while the penalties might be on the high side, they seem to be serving a purpose.

[Alex Cormier]

the penalties are respectably the correct amount of deductible points. the only thing you need to do to reduce penalties is communicate with your alliance members!!!!! it is easy to stay away from penalties for your own team but hard for the alliance.

[Yan Wang]

The penalties are fine. What you don't do is tell your alliance partner to not hit an opponent in the loading zone and then go do it yourself. This angers people like me. Play a fair game. Push, shove, race, but steer clear of what you know is wrong.

The practices matches are there for you to fine tune your driving and get used to a competitive, fast-paced game that requires split-second decision making in order to avoid the penalties. In two days, I committed only one 10pt penalty [accidentally]. Had I been a careful driver, I not only would've not committed the penalty, I would've picked up the tetra faster. In the end, I was to blame. Not the rules.

[Petey]

Absolutely.

The penalties are too great in magnitude for scores that are to low. They are too easy to incur.

I disagreed with Andy Baker and Dave Lavery because this has gone beyond the "just avoid the penalties". I maintain that it is nearily impossible to not risk penalties and still have a competitive robot or strategy.

--Petey

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Petey

I maintain that it is nearily impossible to not risk penalties and still have a competitive robot or strategy.

Sorry Petey, but you are just plain wrong on this point. I offer a specific point of empirical evidence: at the VCU regionals this past weekend, there were only four penalties assessed during the entire set of elimination rounds on Saturday afternoon (including the one DQ for agressive play). Teams learned what the penalties were and how to avoid them. In the total of 20 matches, teams were able to play the game very effectively, execute great strategies, and have very competitive interactions. And they were able to do it nearly "penalty-free" (as the announced kept repeating over and over and over and over and over...).

-dave

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Petey

Absolutely.

The penalties are too great in magnitude for scores that are to low.
...
I maintain that it is nearily impossible to not risk penalties and still have a competitive robot or strategy.

The serious penalties are their to keep the human player safe. The human player is solely concentrated on not causing penalties by their actions. They do not have time to watch for incoming robots like other field personnel do. Therefore, the penalties are warranted.

The less serious penalties associated with the auto loader is for the safety of the attendant. They too are solely concentrated on placing the tetra correctly, they shouldn't have to worry about your robot ramming them.

To have a competitive robot you must effectively play the game. This game was clearly designed to be offensive, to see which alliance can get to their loading zone and cap the most times. It is no accident that if you are playing a more defensive strategy that your robot could have a greater chance of getting penalties.

[AJunx]

I must admit that I am surprised at the number of people who believe that the penalties are too high. There is one thing, that I don't think has yet been mentioned, that could shed some light on why this issue has been somewhat divisive.

After reading over the responses, it seems to me that most of the comments from the "penalties are too high" crowd are all going in a similar direction with regards to why they believe the penalties are too high:

In past years (except in 2001), you had ONE alliance partner. Your team was essentially 50% responsible for not earning penalties. This year, you have TWO alliance partners, and your team is, correspondingly, 33.3% responsible for not receiving a penalty. This, I imagine, is the hang-up.

The scores in the regional competitions thus far have proven the 30-point penalty to be a so-called "kiss of death." Discontent over the strict penalties has arisen because your team (who worked so hard to build a robot that could score tetras) can only be accountable for itself, leaving 66.6% of the responsibility for avoiding penalties to your alliance partners. This might even be acceptable, if you could instruct your alliance partners to avoid penalties and be completely certain that they would do so. However, this certainly is not the case. No one wants to have a victory thrown away because one of their two alliance partners didn't follow the rules.

Had the penalties in previous years been as high as they are this year, relative to the overall scores, I think that most people wouldn't consider the penalties to be too high.
-When a team is 50% accountable (as in past years) for the penalties incurred upon that alliance, the team feels as if they are in control. Penalties can and will be avoided.
-When a team is only 33.3% accountable, however, it seems like they are just in a crapshoot as to whether or not their alliance ends up with a killer penalty. I really hope neither of my alliance partners does anything dumb.

That said, I still think the penalties are appropriate because everyone knows how important it is that they be avoided. Even if you feel that your team is in a crapshoot, the odds are stacked in your favor because both of your alliance partners know how important it is to avoid penalties.

-Andrew

[EricH]

At Sacramento, there was one particularly agressive robot. (Not us.) We were up against them twice. They lost both times. The first time, they would have won- if they hadn't hit us in the loading zone and thrown us off. The refs initially ignored it, but when our coach complained, they corrected the score. The second time out, the same team fractured some acrylic paneling on our robot. To do that, they had to hit us hard- or fast- enough to climb our defensive wedge on that side and still hit hard. Another robot had a front wedge and was DQ'd for tipping.

My point is, that teams who disobey the rules need a penalty. If FIRST lowers the penalties now, then the first week teams will complain that they had it rough. I say that we just accept the penalties the way they are and try to avoid drawing them.

[Benjammin191]

Originally Posted by Petey

Absolutely.

The penalties are too great in magnitude for scores that are to low. They are too easy to incur.

I disagreed with Andy Baker and Dave Lavery because this has gone beyond the "just avoid the penalties". I maintain that it is nearily impossible to not risk penalties and still have a competitive robot or strategy.

--Petey

I have to disagree. Defensive play can be used just as well with the penalities in place as it could be without penalties at all. In the 2nd round of the championship match at FLR, our opponents only scored 4 points the entire match. This wasn't because of penalties (there werent any), but because of the excellent defense our alliance partner (team 494) played. They single-handedly defended the opposing alliance limiting them to 4 points and without getting a single penalty. Just stay away from the opposite team's loading zones and it shouldn't be a problem.

All you need is a driver who knows the rules to avoid penalities. Be agressive, play defense, but know the rules and dont break them.