Petition: Lower technical foul values to make this game better

[mathking]

As quite a few posters have said, the high point value for inadvertent fouls is a problem. I think smaller point values would make for a better game. If you are really concerned with keeping play clean perhaps the point values ratchet up for multiple instances of the same infraction in the same match. One thing I think that would dramatically improve the game would be to have six scorekeepers, whose only job is to watch one team for possessions and scores. Then the referees could look just for fouls and not have a divided responsibility.

As a side note, I don't think any of the fouls called against us were wrong. We had our robot go well past (at least 3 or 4 inches) the safety zone once and in another match while trying to pick up a ball we hit 2171 very hard with our grabber, that happened to be about two feet up in the air right at the level of the Anderson connector for their battery, which we wrecked. It was inadvertent but consequential contact (we apologized to them and they gave us the wrecked connector for "pointing out a design flaw in their robot" and no one ended up angry) with another robot inside its frame perimeter. Both were clearly our fault and should have been called. So I am not complaining because I think we got treated unfairly. But I did see several instances where other teams were trying to gather a ball and a robot came at them from the side, hitting an extended grabber and drawing a foul. Given the game there is just no way to avoid such contacts.

[scaryone]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Based on what I saw at UNH, I would say no. The refs were doing a really good job of only calling egregious violations. Also, it is certainly possible for a team to make up for these penalties even in the elims. Take for instance our first semifinal match:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8HCV...lMsJyhDvk57J7Q

We racked up 70 points in penalties and still won the match. Also note that this was against the alliance that inevitably went on to win the banner (after going through 3 semi final match 3s due to replays).

I was very impressed with the reffing, and never felt that a penalty we were called on wasn't warranted. Even when it altered the outcome of a match, I think the calls were fair.

Take for instance this match:


In a game with 60 point cycles and 75 points up for grab in autonomous, the 50 points is just enough to make it hurt when it happens. I equate the 50 point penalties to pass interference call. They can certainly affect the outcome of a game, they are sometimes controversial, but if they were less they may not be enough of a deterrent.

Agree with MathKing (Bob). UNH fouls seemed very reasonable, even with the 5 match Semi. The UNH officials did a great job and made the right call. You guys played us very hard and it was fun.

[Michael Hill]

I would like a "keep-out zone" marked on the field 20" from any human player zone. If there are any robots in that zone when a human player extends over the field, make it a technical foul. Otherwise, a regular foul.

[sircedric4]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Based on what I saw at UNH, I would say no. The refs were doing a really good job of only calling egregious violations. Also, it is certainly possible for a team to make up for these penalties even in the elims. Take for instance our first semifinal match:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8HCV...lMsJyhDvk57J7Q

We racked up 70 points in penalties and still won the match. Also note that this was against the alliance that inevitably went on to win the banner (after going through 3 semi final match 3s due to replays).

I was very impressed with the reffing, and never felt that a penalty we were called on wasn't warranted. Even when it altered the outcome of a match, I think the calls were fair.

Take for instance this match:


In a game with 60 point cycles and 75 points up for grab in autonomous, the 50 points is just enough to make it hurt when it happens. I equate the 50 point penalties to pass interference call. They can certainly affect the outcome of a game, they are sometimes controversial, but if they were less they may not be enough of a deterrent.

And based on what I was seeing at the Arkansas was exactly opposite. This is a personal amecdote just like your anecdote. The problem is that there is too much for the refs to do in order to have a consistent experience across all the venues. The fouls are too subjective and too penalizing. My experience with Aerial Assist, this is not a game of highest scoring alliance winning but who the referees allow to win.

I am happy you had good refs, I was not happy with ours. A change in the game rules is necessary to eliminate as much of the human subjectivity as possible. First should strive for consistent game experiences and that requires doing something with referee calls swinging games.

[IronicDeadBird]

Changing point values after matches have been played WILL cause a firestorm. Everyday since kickoff I have switched from checking facebook first when I have access to the internet to checking FRC Manual, then Delphi, then I lose track of time checking Delphi.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by sircedric4

And based on what I was seeing at the Arkansas was exactly opposite. This is a personal amecdote just like your anecdote. The problem is that there is too much for the refs to do in order to have a consistent experience across all the venues. The fouls are too subjective and too penalizing. My experience with Aerial Assist, this is not a game of highest scoring alliance winning but who the referees allow to win.

I am happy you had good refs, I was not happy with ours. A change in the game rules is necessary to eliminate as much of the human subjectivity as possible. First should strive for consistent game experiences and that requires doing something with referee calls swinging games.

I'm curious, how may refs did you have at your event? We had 6 + 1 head ref.

[wlaroche]

They increased the referees to 5 on the field and one to rotate in and out. It helped quite a bit. This does not count the head ref, they would be the sixth set of eyes.

[inquiryteacher]

Definitely Yes.

In the regional we just competed in the number of fouls was ridiculous and decided the outcome of many of the matches. Students from many teams where disgusted, disheartened, and discouraged. They were not really judged for their design or performance excellence, but more often for incidental or inconsequential fouls.

This year was a cleverly designed contest as it allowed for the inclusion of even the most inexperienced teams in game play. Teams without the skills or resources to build complicated apparatus are able to compete and even complete important scores to quickly complete cycles. But the amount and severity of the fouls is significantly disproportionate. Some of the fouls are very difficult to call an some are quite subjective. Adult delays after scoring (relighting the pedestal) caused more the one speedy youngster and alliance team to suffer. Incidentally, the students got to enjoy double jeopardy (two fouls - one offense) as the balls were almost immediately back in play giving them little time to realize their mistake and sealing the fate of the match.

The same teams who were cleverly included this year are also the most at risk. The simple apparatus necessary to compete often lack the sophistication to quickly be moved out of harms way. Asking for students to design a bot with allowances for a 20 inch overhang, and then repeatedly dinging them for contact within the perimeter of another bot is a design flaw in the contest. This type of contact should have been expected without the addition of any safe zones and bots should be designed sturdily, to withstand the rigors of the contest.

While there naturally should be some sort of penalty associated, We will likely see teams exploiting this flaw to gain foul points as the weeks go by, as I believe I have already witnessed a few times. It will decide contests and it is simply to easy for them not to.

This contest design flaw will likely influence design and creativity next year, as students will be asked to design around not fouling, instead of letting their more ingenious designs come to light. Interestingly enough, our team was chosen as an alliance partner in the finals, not due to our stellar performance in the regional, but simply because with a few modifications, it made it almost impossible to foul.

[xXhunter47Xx]

No.
This is unfair to week 1 and week 2 regional teams who have already played and have lost because of unintentional tech fouls on their end. If you lower them, then that means we would have to play all the week 1 and week 2 regionals again because of changes made in the rules.
The rules that tell both teams and refs how fouls/tech fouls should be assessed have been around since kickoff. Teams should have already known about what causes foul/tech foul and designed/practiced around not causing said fouls.
Every single team has had at least 6 weeks to know the rules of the game. Lowering tech foul points for something that everyone knows will cause an infraction is unacceptable. The biggest tech foul I've seen is HP over passing their border. The human player should have it ingrained in their mind that they cannot pass the border that was set by FIRST in the HP zone.
Other tech fouls sometimes cannot be avoided, sometimes they're even unintentional, but if you play their game you play by their rules. No exceptions.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by xXhunter47Xx

No.
This is unfair to week 1 and week 2 regional teams who have already played and have lost because of unintentional tech fouls on their end. If you lower them, then that means we would have to play all the week 1 and week 2 regionals again because of changes made in the rules.

This alone is horrible logic. Let's spite teams for over a month of regionals and championships just so people that have already played don't feel bad? If it's broke, fix it.

It's broke, by the way. No doubt about that.

[mathking]

The logic of it being unfair to week 1 and 2 teams is a bit flawed anyway. All of the teams at those regional and district competitions had to compete with the same rules. Making rule changes to improve the game is perfectly legitimate. In spite of frustrating problems sometimes from our bot, this game is really growing on me. Well crafted strategy can easily compete with amazing robots. (Though well crafted strategy employed by the amazing robots is hard to stop.) So I would love to see some of the foul values reduced and I think it would improve the game.

[mrnoble]

No. The OP cited G40 specifically, and safety rules are ones that shouldn't ever lend themselves to strategic decisions ("if I play in such a way that I might violate this rule, I'd still statistically have a chance at an advantage"). The GDC addressed the "pinkie" problem with their update last week. Students who grudgingly accept that they can lose a game by putting their hand in the arena, and thus will try to avoid the penalty (and the wrath of their alliance partners) are students who are NOT losing an arm to a fast-moving machine. I've seen industrial accidents and this game definitely has the potential to produce one. Keep the 50 points.

[Woolly]

Yes.

Originally Posted by Karthik

Agreed, however a 15 yard penalty in football is mere pittance compared to the "match killer" 50 point penalty in Aerial Assist.

Absolutely! I don't think FIRST anticipated the heavy defense being played this year. As a result, they anticipated higher match scores. For regionals and districts fouls should be 10 points, and tech fouls should be about 25, with a re-calibration for Championships based on what kind of scores are seen at the district championships.

Also, A more fitting penalty for G40 would be to disable the entire alliance at fault for 5-10 seconds, and give a tech foul if the human player entering the field was strategic or consequential.

[xXhunter47Xx]

Originally Posted by Woolly

Also, A more fitting penalty for G40 would be to disable the entire alliance at fault for 5-10 seconds, and give a tech foul if the human player entering the field was strategic or consequential.

This is actually more along the lines of what I was thinking.
I couldn't come up with it because I'm being distracted by unimportant non-robot things like homework, but to Chris is me specifically this is more what I meant.

[Nyle]

Originally Posted by Woolly

Also, A more fitting penalty for G40 would be to disable the entire alliance at fault for 5-10 seconds, and give a tech foul if the human player entering the field was strategic or consequential.

This would be an interesting alternative to the current foul system, but it would have to work around a number of potential issues in it’s implementation, so it would be infeasible to implement this year.

If suddenly disabled, some robots may perform actions that could be very undesirable. For instance, my team’s catapult is locked back with an electromagnet prior to firing, so in certain situations a sudden disable could cause us to fire the ball in whatever direction we were facing in, which may be into the stands, significantly increasing the time it would take for the alliance to complete that cycle.

My other major concern would be the potential for a robot to foul during this period. They would be unable to prevent themselves from accidentally catching an opponents ball, back off from a pin, or (if this were in a different game) prevent themselves from hitting an opposing robot in a protected zone. Some of these could be engineered around or fixed with exceptions in the rules, but for others this would not be feasible.

Probably the most viable way to implement this would be to add a third game mode which would allow the code to control the robot, but not allow it to read input from the driver station. This would make most, but not all, of the problems mentioned avoidable.