My impression is that about half the people commenting lucidly on the topic think the rule is fine as is. Others seem to believe that almost everyone disagrees with it. So I’d like to find out what the CD community really thinks.
Please do not continue the debate here. I’d appreciate it if this thread could be kept as just the poll.
I believe the rule should only be called if a robot completely enters the quadrant previous to the one it is currently in.
This is a hard penalty to call, if you barely touch the line after crossing the line it could induce a penalty. Also traffic builds up around the turns. If your robot has already crossed the line it can’t maneuver to get to the open lane, it has to wait till the spot it is in clears up.
This is hard for drivers, the rumors you hear about positions 1 and 3 are true, you can’t see very well on the other end of the field. Personally I can’t even tell if we are playing 2 robots or three robots at the beginning of the game let alone judge where my teams robot is on the field.
If the rule was changed like this, the amount of penalty’s would drop significantly and there would be less games decided on penalty’s.
I agree that part of your bot should be able to cross the line, but not the whole bot. Personally I dont like it when penalties make or break a match, but on a better note, I dont think 145 got a line violation at FLR.
I think this rule could use a tweak so as to better follow the INTENT of the rule, since thats what the GDC seems to be all about this year (in some cases even going so far as to say do what we meant, not what we said). Some way to allow small portions of the robot (ie. the corner of a steering skid steer bot) to break the plane without inducing a penalty
But Alan, then the thread would never get bumped 
To follow up my vote, “The Rule is bad but could be fixed”, I think that the intent of the rule is to
a) prevent re-scoring on the same line
b) prevent traffic flow in the opposite direction
As a driver, Positions 1 and 3 are bad ENOUGH (very terrible in fact; It literally can make or break your match), and then to get wrong-way penalties for trying to maneuver through pileups and traffic… The intent of the rule isn’t being considered. It’s not like I’m driving in reverse around the track; I simply am trying to move through traffic, and if I happen to be over one of the cursed white lines, I’m screwed.
In my opinion, the rule should be written so that you cannot cross two consecutive lines in reverse order. This allows some freedom for the driver to maneuver through traffic, but doesn’t allow him to go in reverse around the track to chase a ball. The disadvantage of course: it would be almost impossible to ref this.
Jacob
So far, it looks like it is just a noisy minority that doesn’t really like it, which makes sense. You don’t post a thread to say “I am satisfied with rule G22!!”
I think the rule is good but needs some modification. I look at the rules as being imposed constraints to allow team members to plan, design, and play under additional simulated physical constraints that real world problems will present in the future. However, there are great many areas of the field that for one reason or another, the drivers cannot see that they are in violation. How can a driver 30 feet away, looking through a two lexan panels with reflections and a multitude of vertical poles, tell that their bumper which is several inches off the floor and in bad light, has just crossed backwards over the lane marker by 1/4". (The parallax in this situation is tremendous) There is just no way that can occur. Make the rule that the whole (or the majority of) robot must cross backwards over a line to incur the penalty and then I think you have something. Even refs must be hard pressed to see that small a change accurately.
I wouldn’t trivialize that minority. It’s about twenty percent right now. Hey, that number sounds familiar:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=715777#post715777
You don’t post a thread to say “I am satisfied with rule G22!!”
No?
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=674094#post674094
What Al said.
rules like g22 are important to any FIRST game because they require a level of skill from the drivers. While I hate seeing matches determined by a penalty it is rulings like this that keep the game from being a “crash and bash” event. In most cases that I have seen this rule violated it would only take the driver a second or less to avoid the penalty.
I think Drivers should remember the following:
make sure you want to cross the line before you do it.
Make sure there is enough room in the next quadrant.
Do not turn immediately following crossing the line.
If you do the following things I think that you will never get the penalty.
The way I read the poll, 59% right now have voted for either “it’s good but could be fixed” or “it’s bad but could be fixed”. Only 35% say that nothing is wrong. To me, this is a clear majority saying that there is at least some problem with the rule that could be better. In fact, I’d even say that the noisy minority is the group saying nothing is wrong (35%).
On “good”, the word is actually “improved”, which has a somewhat different meaning from “fixed”. (Improved=made better; fixed=it’s broken and needs repair)
So 35% say nothing is wrong, about the same say the rule could be better (something minor–like hybrid code that only does one line but has time to do more), and the rest say the rule needs fixing (like a robot that was hit and lost the ability to drive). This aside from the people that don’t care or say it’s a bad rule and should be removed (Which combined are smaller than any one of the others).
Dave, every rule written could find people that want to see it modified. It is a rule and that means constraints. There are always people that want all constraints removed and those who want them lessened. As for me I would like to see the rule called as written:
<G22> Direction Of Traffic – ROBOTS must proceed around the TRACK in a counter-clockwise
direction. Once a ROBOT has CROSSED a LANE MARKER or FINISH LINE, it shall not
break the plane of the line by moving in the clockwise direction. A PENALTY will be
assigned for each infraction.
In the Arena section it states :
6.2.1 Boundaries and Markings
The TRACK is an octagonal carpeted 27 feet by 54 feet area, bounded by two Alliance Station
Walls and a Guardrail System. and
As the ROBOTS move in a counter-clockwise direction around the TRACK, the quadrant of the
TRACK immediately preceding the FINISH LINE for each ALLIANCE is known as the “HOME
STRETCH.”
This is my Q&A question:
As I have read in the Q&A in gives the indication that moving clockwise within a quadrant is allowed. Should the rule have stated that robots must move in a counter clockwise direction between quadrants but may move in any direct within the quadrant or is the rule correct that all traffic must be in a counter-clockwise direction?
I only got a see other question answer. As written there is nothing that states it is OK to drive backwards in a quadrant. I know that it states that you will be penalized for crossing back over a line but no other examples are given. I guess my point is, there are definite rules stating DO NOT cross back over the line that have been there since day 1. It may not be the best rule but it does state the rule, penalty and above all has not changed since day 1. Why is this such a big issue? When you get a ticket for going the wrong way on the street can you use the defence that I only went a bit the wrong way?
Last year we were upset that the rules continually were changing and now we are upset that they are not. No wonder FIRST has a problem figuring out what is best when we can’t decide. Again I state my point, Rules should not be changed during competition season. Explanations are OK but don’t change the rules.
I would add to this Steve, that the rules should be enforced AS WRITTEN, and not “as we meant”, and of course, after the initial picking apart by the community in the first X days after kickoff
Steve, it’s a big issue because it’s being called in something like 75%+ of matches. It’s affecting the outcome of many of those matches. I get that it’s been there since day 1. Everyone keeps saying that. So what. If it really, truly was such an easy rule for everyone to follow, then why is this penalty being assessed more than any other rule that I can think of in the history of FIRST? That’s my point. Regardless of how easy it is for many of you to follow, LOTS of teams seem to be having problems with it - this fact cannot be denied, can it? I get that they should learn to fix it. Fine, whatever. In the meantime, it’s creating a lousy situation for spectators, young teams, new mentors, and potential sponsors.
How many of you would keep watching an (American) football game if the refs threw a flag on 3 out of every 4 downs? There’s been lots of sports analogies (even though the FIRST mantra is that we want to be better examples than many athletes), but I can’t think of any sport where there are anywhere near as many penalties as we are seeing in this game.
Pre-VCU, I would have said “Bad but can be fixed”. Post-VCU after actually experiencing it, I’d say “Good but can be improved”. I’d like some sort of indicator for when a violation has happened, much like what Al said and for the same reasons.
Thanks for the detailed poll Alan, and a bump.
I don’t know if anyone said it was and easy rule to FOLLOW, but it is an easy rule to understand. It is part of the game challenge and, as such, should be penalized if not followed. It’s not necessarily supposed to be easy. In fact, I would argue that part of what makes FIRST fun is that it is NOT easy. Yes, it can make the game difficult for spectators (and teams also), but if it is a big concern then teams need to adjust their strategies to try to avoid receiving this penalty.
The most tense time in a match and the one that draws everyone in is just before the scores are announced. Did someone get penalized? Were the real time scores correct? Who really won? How much more drama can be added than that? The teams that win celebrate and the teams that lose should celebrate too. It doesn’t matter how you “correct” the rule there will still be variances and close calls. There will still be unhappy people. There will still be complaints. To be honest how can FIRST make us all happy? How many people in reality really are totally upset and disgruntled? Most of those that I saw at the one regional I was at were having a great time and were accepting what was happening as part of the game.
Here I must disagree with you.
The rule has been in place since kickoff. The designs for the field, a week later. Teams that did not look at the field setup and where the blind spots would be are now complaining because they cannot see their robot.
It is not the GDCs fault that some teams did not take into account field design and driver viewing angle (I learned all abot that in Stack Attack) when they worked on their strategy and now, because of this failing, they want the rules to change.
All I can say is I am very happy that the GDC decided to not change the rules.
P.S. As far as viewing the robot … have you ever considered putting your robocoach on the other side of the field and give hand signals?
JM(NS)HO
It would be neat to see the position of the robocoach mined further for the value that it offers in this game as part of the drive team/alliance.