Sorry to the IRI organizers for jumping the gun here, but there are a few rule changes for this game that I’d like to get out in the open before I forget about them.
If the ball leaves the field of play on the drivers’ side of the truss, the ball must be returned to the driver station human player. This includes truss-passes that do not count because they were wide of the pole. (I felt this should have been the rule all year.)
Rationale: there needs to be more risk in the truss passing. As of now, if you’re under any defensive pressure you can just shoot the ball wildly out of bounds and the down-field HP will get the ball in about the same amount of time as if you made a perfect truss pass. The game should require some accuracy in the truss game. The current game is like if you were given a 15 yard gain in football for throwing the ball out of bounds under pressure - that’s crazy.
Allow up to 6 balls for autonomous.
Rationale: There are going to be so many good teams at IRI that I would love to see a lot of teams run multi-ball routines in the same match. It would also add a bit of risk/reward - can you imagine having to chase down 3-4 albatross balls. Yikes.
Asists durring auto! Mabye 2nd posession adds 30 3rd adds 60. With that format 1 auto ball could be worth 110pts. Obviously zone requirements would be ignored. Also, golies can leave there zone durring auto assuming they don’t exceed 60 inches
The truss shot rule mentioned by Chris should be extended little more, 20pt foul if the truss shot goes outside the field but not caught by HP or HP does not even touch the ball without leaving HP zone.
Rationale: So many teams have been randomly shooting over the truss, sometimes putting volunteers/refs/judges in awkward dodging game.
Also the volunteer getting such balls should walk and bring the ball to HP, not run or throw the ball. Shooting randomly should have some consequence.
While I don’t think the above suggestion is a bad idea, there is already “somewhat” of a penalty associated with delivering an out-of-bounds ball to the downfield human players… It does make earning the 10 Truss Points a little more disruptive to your cycle as you’d have to backtrack to the defensive half of the field before re-attempting your Truss Shot. I’ve always just considered this an adequate penalty for missing your first attempt, especially in heavily defensive matches.
I mean, the Kinect and webcam driving made for cool interaction during “auton”, but they were both just different ways to drive the robot in auton.
Even the hybrid auton of 2008 didn’t allow for that much driving in auton.
Don’t get me wrong, I love how teams took the Q&A ruling and used it to their advantage, but I feel this will probably be changed in future years (unless it will no longer be a true autonomous period).
I think the penalty for taking the ball off the pedestal should stay.
I think the penalty for inbounding should only be applied if it is inbounded before the last ball is physically scored (not when scored by the ref).
Rationale: The team has already been penalized for taking a ball off the pedestal. If the ball is inbounded after the last ball has scored, then there really is no harm. It also eliminates the requirement that a team remove the “dead ball” before the next cycle can start.
One other possible change is: When the live ball is scored, the dead ball then becomes a live ball, and the cycle starts from there. Again, the team has already been penalized 100 points (50 for removing from the pedestal, and 50 for inbounding before the last ball is scored) so no team would intentionally do it to save a few seconds.
Inflate balls to a nominal diameter. This can be easily tested by having a square rig that you shove a ball through. If it goes through without getting snagged but still touches all 4 sides, it would be in spec. It just seems like such an easy thing to do that can make the experience better for teams that it baffled me as to why this was not implemented at some point during the season.
Also, change G12:
“The intent of G12 is to prevent an ALLIANCE from inhibiting an opponent’s ability to interact with their BALL, but accommodate accidental and inconsequential actions by way of fewer FOUL points. Actions which are perceived as consequential and extended are distinct violations, as there are scenarios where POSSESSION of an opponent’s BALL could be consequential or extended but not necessarily both.”
In QF4-1 on Archimedes, we were assessed a 20 point foul when the red ball inbounded by the red alliance human player landed directly in our robot. I have no doubt this was unintentional, they were clearly trying to inbound to the Killer Bees. We immediately launched the ball directly back to the red human player who caught it, then re-entered it into play at the next possible opportunity (if anything we saved them time and they were better off than if they had just missed and the ball been on the floor). If the intent of G12 is as stated, no action by our team could have changed the fact that we had possessed the ball and the rule is ineffective at preventing an alliance from inhibiting an opponent’s ability to interact with their ball in cases where it is the direct result of the opponent’s actions. Why should we be penalized for their human player missing an inbound?
I understand why the foul was assessed, but my problem is with the rule as written. I suggest it changes such that actions by the opposing alliance which directly cause your possession of the opponent’s ball result in 0 foul points as long as the ball leaves the robot in a timely manner. I would like to see it changed to define an exact amount of time when it goes from being “inconsequential” to “consequential” for cases of accidental possession. Somewhere in the 3-5 seconds range sounds reasonable and it gives the refs a concrete standard to go by.
For our offseason we’ve thrown around ideas about extra truss points for getting a ball between two poles in the center of the field, increasing the value of a quick truss to the field.
We’ve also thrown around the idea of a “safe catching zone” on the white lines where a robot cannot be touched if their partner is trussing. Still working on the details for that one. The rationale is that several teams in our area spent many hours on a catcher, so we want to find a way for the catch to be valuable at our event.
Similar to Paul’s autonomous should be autonomous, adjusting the definition of launching for possession. I’m not sure the intent of the rule was to allow a human player to bounce a ball off a robot, causing a mechanism to move in relation to the robot, and count for a possession. Perhaps put a condition that the ball cannot cause the mechanism to move? Props to the teams who recognized the rules allow it, but I think it shouldn’t be allowed.
Remove the penalties for humans entering the field, unless the referee determines that their action was dangerous.
Remove intrusion into a robot unless damage was caused or it is blatent and repeated.
If a ball enters an opposing robot and is immediately ejected, no penalty shoudl be assessed.
Double the score for catches.
No ‘driving’ the robot in auto with hybrid systems.
Do NOT penalize robots for missing a shot to the human truss player. We need fewer penalties, not more.
These three come as a group:
7. Remove the requirement for a ‘lit’ pedestal. The human player waits until a ball comes through the top or side goal.
8. Allow ‘bounce-in’ scores over the truss.
9. Allow ‘bounce-in’ scores off opposing robots.
That means that in teleop if your ball comes in through a goal, it’s been legally scored and you start another cycle.
6 auton balls is a neat idea, but that would change the score to significantly weight it in autonomous’s favor. For the couple teams that have a consistent 3 ball (3539, 254) it would be a big benefit. After all, how many matches are you going to have another 2 ball auto with you?
In fact, this would be highlighted in qualification matches. Many robots aren’t capable of 2 ball by design, and allowing 6 balls to the teams that can do a consistent 3 ball would break qualifications, giving those teams a consistent and large lead at the beginning of nearly every autonomous.
Get rid of G21 (robot extending outside field) as long as there is no violation of G24 (extending up to 20" beyond frame perimeter).
Get rid of or modify G40 (human player extending into safety zone) provided G41 is not violated (human player may not contact robot or a ball in contact with a robot). I’m not sure if there would be too much liability here.
Have the pedestal light controlled by a person with a switch rather than FMS - that way it will light as soon as a ball is scored.
I agree. Though if this is done, I would also get rid of hot goals - just make all auto balls hot (or not), since you still can’t count on deterministic timing of the goals as of Champs.
If you decrease tech fouls to 30 points, I’m going to pin the crap out of the opposing ball carrier near the end of a match. No way am I letting them score 40 points with that ball.
Is there not an additional penalty for repeatedly breaking a rule as part of a strategy? I don’t remember them having to make a call like that at IRI in the past but I would hate for them to have to.