On Rules, Referees, and Rewards (aka Penalties)

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Section_4-The_Game:
4.3.2 Safety
<S01> If at any time the ROBOT operation is deemed unsafe, by the determination of the referees, the ROBOT
will be disabled for the remainder of the match.

We disagree with your opinion that a tetra swinging over the glass and back is not a safety issue. The swinging back part is after the fact; it became unsafe when it cleared the glass, as evidenced by a number of people getting boinked.

So what are we to do? If we wait for one to fall, it's too late. If we wait until it scares one of us, then which one. Some of us just don't scare easy.

It is often the case that the best way out of a bad situation is to try and not get into one. That's one reason for the interpretation. Another is that it's just not right when one one end of the field gets a team disabled and the other doesn't because the ref at one is timid and the other fearless.

The call is as easy for the teams to accept as it is to enforce; it either brakes the plane, or it doesn't. The result is that teams slow down and carry the tetra lower.

Jack, I will not get into a verbal war with you. I will contend that any robot that has any part of it go over, under or around the edge of the playing field is a safety hazzard. The people at risk are volunteers but it is no less unsafe. I also cotend that a tetra that is 95% below the glass and has 5%, the top point, break the plane is in no way unsafe for anyone. Don't come back to me and say that it doesn't happen because I was there and saw it. I also contend that any robot enering a loading zone is a safety issue when there is a human player right there going to, loading, or exiting the zone right next to the robot entering. I just believe that this is another issue that referees are trying to control the game. As refs they need to becausious to follow the rules and be wise in the implimentation of them. With the loading zone rules there is refs discression on wether there is a penalty or not. This should also be the case with safety and the "breaking the plane" which is a rule that the refs brought in without any FIRST official update. They did make an update when they changed the size of the loading zone so why not with this one.

Basically I say let the kids play and unless there is a safety issue, don't shut the kids down. BTW the only time I saw people hit by tetras over the glass there was no shut down. I also saw no robots that pushed the "offending" robot disabled when they were the ones responsible for the infraction.

[eugenebrooks]

Perhaps I am being more concerned about safety than is reasonable, but breaking the plane of the wall in front of the operators station seems like a suitable stopping point for the infracting robot and the stop should be for the rest of the match. Any referee that disables a robot that takes an unsafe action will get cudos from me.

I'll let the refs sort out whether or not a shoving robot should share some of the "penalty liability," but what is unsafe should be responded to without delay. It is only the failure to disable a robot that breaks the plane of the wall in front of the operator station, or breaks the plane of the edge of the field by swinging its arm where people could be, that is of concern to me, and this concern is not for fairness reasons...


In reality, there should be some sort of barrier in place and contact with this barrier should be cause for stopping a robot "for safety reasons."
Similarly, there have been close calls at the loader stations. Designing a barrier here, similar to the barrier used around the "10 point balls" last year, would have been in order. With such a barrier a robot that swings its outside of the edge of the field would contact the barrier before it hit a students head, and should be disabled when it does so.

When it comes to safety, I think that we need to step back from the issues of what the penalities should be and whether or not "the unsafe operation of a robot is over." The robot that is being operated in an unsafe manner should be shut down. Students will get it, and will be more careful in the next match. This is as it should be...

[sammy]

Steve W, I'd like to ask you to please move your discussion to a more appropriate thread. This thread is about discussing how the rules are good, and how they help the kind of game environment that we like to see in FIRST. It's nothing against defensive robots, and it isn't about bad calls. This thread is just about the rules themselves, and how they are helping to make the game safe and effective.

Let's keep on topic here, please.

Sammy

[RyanMcE]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Are penalties too large? Yes.

I can sympathize with with - I mean, penalties basically got 2x to 6x bigger this year while scoring was divided by 2x to 6x. So thats a 4x to 36x bigger penalty versus the score. Thats probably too big of a swing for one year, even if it does seem to be working to my team's advantage.

Originally Posted by Steve W

Are they being called consistently? No.

At the PNW regional, my impression is that it was consistent. This says nothing about other regionals. And maybe even I am not right in this impression. But I can only speak from what I noticed. The inconsistencies I pointed out in the original thread were definitely the exceptions in my experience at the PNW regional.

Originally Posted by Steve W

Are rules changing again? Yes.

This is far too true. A rule change a week after regionals have started is pretty ridiculous. Maybe the time in loading zone change and "tetra will not be scored" changed were necessary to allow refs to figure the game out, but the additional penalty probably wasn't necessary.

Originally Posted by Steve W

Are rules being called that are not rules? Yes.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

Originally Posted by Steve W

Has FIRST gotten the fact that we don't mind rules we just don't like them being changed? No.

Sign. Yeah. And really, all this changing of rules generates disrespect for whatever rules remain. Its not a healthy way to run a competition.

Originally Posted by Steve W

FIRST is the only place I know of that a foul basically can cause you to lose the match and your team mates. Penalties should be enforced and be there to deter fouls. In the past FIRST was a little to lenient on penalties. Now they have swung the other way. They need to find the mid point.

Well, in basketball, when the score is close, a single foul can decide the match. Granted, there are not 30-shot fouls in basketball. So you're probably right about finding the mid-point.

Originally Posted by Steve W

The referees must have definitive rules that they can call. This will allow them to be more consistent. This is not meant as a slam on refs as they do the job the best that they can and they are all volunteers. The issue is that many of us attend multiple regionals and can see the inconsistencies.

Well, maybe thats why I was so happy this year, because I've only seen one interpretation of the rules, which I felt definitely stopped the robot bashers from simply bashing, and forced defense to be played intelligently. I am under the impression that the Championship will be the same - I hope that it is. But what you say never should have been interpreted as a slam on the refs. Rather, its a slam on FIRST. I said this last year as well. The inconsistencies are NOT the ref's fault. They are due to inconsistent training, inadequate examples, and rules that never seem to be the same two weeks in a row. I totally agree with you on this one.

Originally Posted by Steve W

Last question. Have I ranted enough and should I stop? YES!

Haha, thanks for your input Steve!

[Kevin Sevcik]

Steve W. I can't agree enough on the robots breaking the plane issue. When the head ref announced that a robot breaking the plane for any reason would be disabled instantly, even if it were pushed there, I was flabbergasted. Especially when he then mentioned that the pushing robot may or may not be disabled. This was nowhere in the rules, and you can't even argue that a robot getting pushed around is operating unsafely. You might as well disable and DQ a robot that gets knocked over and falls out of bounds.

Ryan,

I agree that designing a completely penalty free game is incredibly difficult. It's just an ideal to strive for and judge a game against. Penalties can still be minimized. The loading zones this year obviously necessitated penalties to protect them since they're such obvious defense points. If your game has such obvious points of weakness, they should be removed instead of protected with penalties. If at all possible. To quote the Evil Overlord List: "One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation."

[RyanMcE]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I agree that designing a completely penalty free game is incredibly difficult. It's just an ideal to strive for and judge a game against. Penalties can still be minimized. The loading zones this year obviously necessitated penalties to protect them since they're such obvious defense points. If your game has such obvious points of weakness, they should be removed instead of protected with penalties. If at all possible.

Thats a good point Kevin. They knew that the loading zones would be where defense takes place, so they implemented penalties to prevent that. I am trying to think of an alternate method to penalties - or an alternate game setup that might ahve worked with the particualr game we have this year. The only thing that has come to my mind so far is to ahve all the tetras out on the field at the start of the match somehow. I dunno.

On the other hand, even in games like football, there still are penalties (not in points, but in yards) to make sure the game doesn't get out of hand. I'd like to restate that if FIRST allows too much "defense" (I say it in quotes because its funny to me that "defense" is attacking other robots) then the same robot could win year after year. Thats not the point of the competition, in my opinion. Rather, the point is to force teams to come up with novel solutions each year.

Now, this year I think they have done that well, because the robots that I have seen that are actually good at defense have to be suited to the game still. And penalties made that possible. So its a tough call. Certainly, it would eb ideal to not ahve to have any penalties. But the way teams play these days, I think the game designers would be hard pressed to come up with a game without penalties where "defense" wouldn't be the only way to win.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

Haha, thanks for your input Steve!

Now there's an outstanding post, Ryan.

I'm in the same boat as Ryan - I've only seen a small handful of regionals. I've only personally attended Pittsburgh, and while I admit I didn't get to watch nearly as many matches as I'd have liked while I was there, my impression is that the penalties were being called fairly and consistently, and also according to the rules. I thought good defensive strategy was permitted, but dangerous and damaging strategies weren't. That is my opinion based upon a limited number of matches viewed. The question is, is this refereeing "style" similar enough to all the regionals that have been held to be labeled "consistent"? One would hope yes, but frankly, based upon accounts on ChiefDelphi, I'm just not sure. That's why I ask about penalties for "aggressive play" in the final match at Boilermaker - I want to understand how and why penalties are being called at other events to determine if FIRST is doing a good enough job of promoting consistency in rule interpretation. Inconsistency is the easiest way to breed anger and frustration in teams. MLB umpires are horrible at this; while the NFL seems to keep tighter wraps on the performance of their refs. Let's hope FIRST follows the NFL model so the games can be judged fairly across the board, solely on the talents and skill of the teams putting their robots on the field, and not the inconsistent judgment of the volunteers watching from the sidelines. (*Clarification* - This "inconsistent judgment" I'm referring to is on a regional to regional basis, not a single event basis. In no way am I being critical of any one ref crew's performance at a competition. It's the inconsistent interpretation of rules across the board that I'm hoping we can avoid. If any past or present FIRST ref took what I said the wrong way, I apologize.)

Steve W was the announcer in Pittsburgh, among other regionals - he witnesses every single match of an event in person from one of the best viewing spots possible. His job is to watch the action on the field, and his final act after every match is to announce the penalties that have accrued. His accounts of the refereeing and penalty calling would be far more credible than mine. His opinions on what he is seeing on the field are certainly up for debate, but what he actually saw is not. I consider Steve's input to be a valuable resource in judging fairness and consistency of refereeing at FIRST events.

The one big gray area seems to be arms dangling tetras over the operator's station. I remember when we got precariously close to doing this during the course of the match, and I had no idea what the refs would call, primarily because there is no set rule that defines what is and is not legal. Some refs have disabled robots for breaking the plane by a thousandth of an inch. Others have actually left robots enabled even after they dangled tetras over the operator station that actually STRUCK a student. This call seems to be left solely up to the interpretation of the individual refs, and that is unfortunate. One clearly defined rule should be in place across the board, and if it already is, it should be communicated to everyone! The fact that we are debating what should and should not be called regarding tetras over the operator's station is evidence enough that this particular act has not been adequately addressed by FIRST in the rules and/or communicated to the teams. While the mid season rule updates may be frustrating for many, as long as FIRST goes out of their way to communicate these changes to everyone via team updates and verbal announcements at the events - things they have done for many rule changes in the past - and as long as the refs enforce the rules in *nearly* the same manner at each event, it's no big deal. But if our robot does something that's considered perfectly legal at one event but suddenly becomes a penalized action at another, that's when I'd start to get my feathers ruffled. With proper communication and training, there's absolutely no excuse for that situation to ever happen. If FIRST fails to address issues like these in a timely manner, as time goes by, I think it becomes increasingly more difficult for teams to employ Gracious Professionalism in dealing with these problems when the professionalism of the game itself is being compromised by the governing organization's failure to maintain the integrity of the rules. I think we can and should all be patient with mistakes (alliance selection snafus, scoring software) and oversights (inadequate or missing rule definitions) the first time around, as long as we see that FIRST responds quickly and effectively once they occur. I think they have done a great job of that in the past, including earlier this season, and I am hopeful they come through again on this particular area of debate.

[Kyle]

I have been reading this thread and I think it is time I got my chance to rant and stuff too.
I attended the Pittsburgh regional and went to Chesapeake on Saturday to watch, I did notice a difference in the way teams played the game and in the calls the refs made. At Pittsburgh, one of the very few our bots auto went didn't do what it should have, a controller reset was blamed, our arm broke the plain of the drivers station. I was frozen in the stands waiting for the refs to shut us down, it did not happen. I am on the that is a bad "rule" bandwagon breaking the plain is a bad rule, there are to many reasons a team can break the plain unintentionally and then be DQ for it.
I also think that the penalties are like rewards for the other alliance, I also agree that they are to high, well the 30 pointers are but I can see the reason for the 10's. We lost Pittsburgh because of a penalty, I am not going to complain about it because it was the correct call and the other alliance beat us fair and square in the next finials match. I think that FIRST should really look into the penalties to score ratio in next years game.
This years game and rules seem like they were made to try to insure that teams would play less defence and score more, that is probably why the tetra points are so small, the less hitting you do the more scoring you can do. I think that is a good call BY FIRST but it is also making the game less liked by each week of regionals.
When a rule change comes mid season it is completely un fair, At Pittsburgh there was a rule change on Thursday night that effected the regional. What about the regionals before that where those new rules could have made the difference between a team winning and losing? I hope next year the up dates stop at 13 or 14 and then the rules are set unless a major problem occurs.
When I first saw the game animation this year at kick off i kept wondering why there wasn't any protection over the drivers station or on the sides of the field, I think that the sides of the field other then the loading zones should have a raised wall at least 3 feet on each side from the upper rail. That would make the matches much safer.
sorry about the randomness of all of that, I am horrible at long posts like this where I could rant for hours.

[RyanMcE]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I think in the best of all possible worlds, FIRST would design a game where penalties just aren't necessary by the very nature of the game. Or atleast where random 30 point insta-lose penalties aren't necessary.

I actually really like that idea. The only problem that I foresee is designing such a game that isn't battle bots. I mean, 2001 was interesting to me, but not too many people around here seem to have liked it, so we probably will never see something like that again.

Maybe somebody has some good ideas on how a game could be designed that is competitive but doesn't need penalties? Because I can't think of how to do that yet. But I do like the idea, Kevin.

[IanT]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I've seen penalties decide a good many matches. At GLR, my team lost 3 matches because of penalties through no fault of our own. So just because you haven't been bitten by penalties doesn't mean they aren't annoying other people who are playing the game fairly and losing because a human player picked a foot up or a team playing their first match wasn't aware that there was a brand new penalty for putting tetras on the carpet.

At any rate, I'm more concerned with the balance of these penalties. The 30 pointers seem horribly costly. Bumping a robot in a loading zone results in a near definite loss for your whole alliance. Tipping a robot by pushing high gets you a 10 pointer and possible DQ, despite the grievous damage that could result to the other robot. It seems slightly out of whack to me, fair and consistent enforcement or no. I think in the best of all possible worlds, FIRST would design a game where penalties just aren't necessary by the very nature of the game. Or atleast where random 30 point insta-lose penalties aren't necessary.

I Have to agree with this. There are just too many penalties going around and plus did the judges even tell you who got the penalties. it seemed unfair though we performed our best but because of penalties it seemed as though nobody wanted to alliance with us for the quarter final rounds. Andd we think it is just because of or ranking that influenced it. I guess it was not very clear on what you could and could not do. it just did not make any sense to me that is all. If you are having a competition and are giving out penalties just tell the players who got the penalties and what they were for.

[RyanMcE]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

This is no way to start a thread. ChiefDelphi is meant to be an "Open Forum" where people in the FIRST Community can share opinions (hopefully in a civilized manner). You set this thread up like a political rally, where those with differing opinions are not allowed within a 10-mile radius. You started this thread already on your soapbox and that is never good.

No good can come of this thread, it will just spark irrational heated arguments. I would recommend this thread be closed.

*gets down off own soapbox*

Why can't you respond to the actual content of the post? Instead you focus on the delivery. So what if I'm not a politician? Does that mean the idea is flawed? I say no. The idea is good. In case you missed it, let me paraphrase myself:

Originally Posted by Ryan McE

In the one regional I attended (PNW), penalties forced winners to play the game cleanly. Its something that I didn't expect, but I was pleasantly surprised at how well it worked. Bashers didn't win. Cappers did. The game boiled down to who could play the game better, not who could beat the other team up. Thats what I liked about the rules, the consistent calls by referees, and the rewards granted to teams that played by the rules this year. While it was good, there is still work to be done to make sure that calls are as consistent as possible.

I invite you back any time to respond to that content. As a bonus, you don't even have to vote in the poll!

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

D... ChiefDelphi is meant to be an "Open Forum" where people in the FIRST Community can share opinions ... I would recommend this thread be closed.

What kind of "open forum" would we have if we closed any thread started by someone with an opinion?

...back on topic...

I agree that it's good that the rules are being enforced consistently. The 30 pointers seem excessive, but they are having the desired effect on play. Basically, I'd like for the penalties to be less serious, but when it comes right down to it, that would make the game what I wanted it to be, and not what it is.

I do take issue with the characterization of rough play as something inherently bad. FIRST has the same problem that the NFL has - it's a fact that hard hits are more exciting, and make more people want to watch. It's also a fact that hard hits make for broken robots, and neither broken robots nor broken quarterbacks can play the game.

It is, however, entirely possible to make a rough game that is both interesting and not battlebots, and FIRST did that in 2002 and 2003. They have also moved as far as possible away from a rough game, in 2001, and you'll be hard pressed to find people that liked the 2001 game better than either of the years that followed it.

[RyanMcE]

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

What kind of "open forum" would we have if we closed any thread started by someone with an opinion?

Word.

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

I agree that it's good that the rules are being enforced consistently. The 30 pointers seem excessive, but they are having the desired effect on play. Basically, I'd like for the penalties to be less serious, but when it comes right down to it, that would make the game what I wanted it to be, and not what it is.

Interesting point. I do have to admit that the number of games that end 0-0 is a bit high (we even had one).

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

I do take issue with the characterization of rough play as something inherently bad. FIRST has the same problem that the NFL has - it's a fact that hard hits are more exciting, and make more people want to watch. It's also a fact that hard hits make for broken robots, and neither broken robots nor broken quarterbacks can play the game.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that PNW was boring, but apparently a lot of other regionals really were boring (just what I heard, can't say either way myself). However, as to your other point, I think rough play is being discouraged in FIRST, because its not supposed to be just about who can push the other robot around, its supposed to be more about who can accomplish the game better. The engineering challenge is the fact that the game changes each year. If "defensive" robots had free reign, then one robot design could conceivably win year after year with minimal modifications. I don't think thats what any of us want.

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

It is, however, entirely possible to make a rough game that is both interesting and not battle bots, and FIRST did that in 2002 and 2003. They have also moved as far as possible away from a rough game, in 2001, and you'll be hard pressed to find people that liked the 2001 game better than either of the years that followed it.

Well, 2001 was my first year, and I can't help but have good feelings about that diabolical teeter-totter...

And as for this game, I don't think that it disallows rough play, just restricts it to a certain role in the game that makes it so that a purely defensive robot can not adequately play the game. I think that is a wonderful effect, but there will of course be different opinions on this. As I stated in the original post, some games had a lot of defense. The final game of the final match, where presumably the two best alliances faced off, the loosing alliance had only 6 points, I believe. The winning alliance not only stacked their own tetras, but played defense and effectively prevented their opponents from stacking more than two tetras as well. For these reasons, I believe that defense is alive and well, but it along can not win a game.

Thanks for the interesting discussion Kris!

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

Well, 2001 was my first year, and I can't help but have good feelings about that diabolical teeter-totter...

2001 was my first year as well. I do have an interesting perspective on rough play, though - my team loves it. A long time ago, before I had anything to do with 118, one of the robots the team built had a "flipper" for the deliberate purpose of flipping over opponent's robots. Some of the mentors who have been on the team for a while look at it as a point of pride that it's now illegal. I think it would be neat to play that type of game again, but that's not the game we've been given.

My main problem with the penalites, and I've said this elsewhere, is that they make the score too much of a surprise at the end of the match. If the real time scorer, or announcer called out the penalties as they were going on, it would make them much more of a part of the game, and not a big "gotcha" at the end.