Problem with Penalties

FIRST General Forum
21

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9019&highlight=defense

I don’t like it either when matches are decided by penalties, but in my experience (Portland, Seattle and Atlanta… not that I saw ALL the matches at these events, of course…) there were a lot of teams that either failed to keep their robot moving in a counter-clockwise direction

That is not a requirement of the game - you are free to travel in whichever direction you choose within a quadrant.

…or decided that rather than playing the game they would try to stop someone else from playing the game. I can’t blame the GDC for the poor choices of teams that do not make an effort to follow the rules. (And yes, I know these rules took effort to follow, and am very proud of our drive team for their efforts to stay within the rules and avoid penalties. It was challenging, but certainly not impossible.)

Again…

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9019&highlight=defense
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9019&highlight=defense
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9019&highlight=defense
ad infinitum

I can most assuredly tell you that playing defense is possible without obtaining an absurdly ginormous quantity of penalties. We chose this strategy in Atlanta and received a total of 2 penalties the entire event. Both were interference while hurdling. One was deserved; the other was a result of an opposing bot pushing their partner’s hurdling bot into us while we were attempting to navigate around the hurdling process - the refs missed that one. It happens.

I am sure many others played D this year while keeping the penalties to a minimum.

All in all, I agree that while an abnormally high number of matches this year were decided by penalties, and that put a damper on the “fan friendliness” of the competition, penalties are both necessary “evils” and something teams can avoid with proper training, practice, and execution.

I do like the modification of G22 to require a more “blatant” clockwise move across the line in order for the penalty to occur.

I would, however, be willing to see penalties enacted in a different fashion… for instance a ten second deactivation of a robot that “goes backwards”… or seeing the refs provided with interfaces to the scoring system so that the penalties are recorded in “real time”. But there has to be some significant consequence for teams who take the “easy path” of just blocking or interfering with a team that has taken the time and effort to design a robot that is actually capable of playing the game.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9019&highlight=defense
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9019&highlight=defense
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9019&highlight=defense
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9019&highlight=defense
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=9019&highlight=defense
ad infinitum

There is a fine line between encouraging teams who are not as “capable” as others to step outside their comfort zone and try new robot designs and having offensive teams offer up haughty, harsh criticisms of those simple, annoyingly effective robots who choose to play the game in a different but still legal manner than the majority of FRC teams. Then there are those bots who can play the game numerous ways and would like to retain the freedom to choose the style of gameplay they wish to employ for a given match…

There is a balance to be struck between eliminating all penalties, inviting havoc and chaos on the playing field, and having so many strict penalties in the rulebook that not even the 100% offensive bots (the ones who purportedly “play the game the right way”) can escape them when they’re in the wrong place at the wrong time.

22

I will agree that <G22> penalties were easy to incur this year. I think that until the fields were set up in arena lighting settings, the GDC didn’t realize the effect of reflections off the center barrier. However, there were a number of <G22> penalties right in front of the driver stations, and at the finish lines. Those should have been preventable.

All the other penalties, in my opinion, were totally avoidable. Because of the mandatory bumper rule, more robot-to-robot contact within the bumper zone was allowed. <G37> and <G42> were there to reduce contact which would be unfair, either outside the bumper zone or while hurdling.

And there were far too many teams that didn’t understand penalties or other aspects of the rules.

23

i dont know about some of you but i do like some penalties but i really do agree with you on the matches being decided by penalties and i think that some of them should be more severe, for all of you that were at the buckeye regional you know why. i am one of the drivers for team 1008 and the way my alliance was made for the finals matches our robot was the only one that could hurdle. we lost our first match because of some plain bad luck, the second we dominated with a score of like 80 to 40 or something like that. the third match we were hurdling and a bot from the other alliance on purpose hits us from the back and pushes us up onto the overpass and got us stuck, we were impeding in no way there were 2 lanes open and the bot that pushed us had stopped and waited for us to let go of the ball so they wouldnt be hitting the hurdler. but in my opinion it was extremely against gracious professionalisms and we ended up losing that match and a chance to advance because of it. they were given a 10 pnt penalty but our alliance had to give ourselves a going back across the line penalty to get our bot down. we finally did but with not enough time to spare to do anything.

in my opinion there should be less penalties for dumb little thing but the bid things that actually affect matches should be of a higher cost to the fouling team

24

Perfect world… It’s kind of hard to tell what does/doesn’t affect a match in realtime.

So here’s what I suggest. Someone go to the Game Design threads and suggest different penalties. I think it technically possible to enter individual team penalties, realtime. I also think that the refs have a hard enough job as it is.

The thing is, the points/penalties relation is what affects the game.

Aye, there is a correlation. It’s not exactly what you think. 2002: 10 points, move a goal/robot and you get them back. Same in 2003 and 2004. 2006, shoot a few balls or put two robots on the ramp, 2007, same general idea. OK so far? Good, because here’s the correlation.

In 2005, touching a robot in a particular area of the field was 30 points. Many matches had that as the winning score! In contrast, 10 points was 3 tetras, or 1 row, or 3 robots behind the home line, all of which were pretty tough to do and keep–and 10 points was a relatively minor penalty! Follow me so far? The penalty was out of proportion. 2008, one penalty for a very minor infraction meant one lap, with hurdle, to undo, plus keeping opponents at bay. Again, out of proportion to the damage.

So it’s not the number of penalties, it’s the proportion to the score that’s the issue. If the GDC gets it right, there are fewer complaints. If they don’t, the refs get badmouthed, the GDC is blamed, etc.

And then there’s the other thing… It really helps to just play the game and try to avoid penalties.

25

I don’t like to see a match decided simply on penalties. More often than I would like to count, I witnessed matches where more than 80 points in penalties were assessed between the two alliances. I know the value of penalties in keeping the game played as intended but G22’s were assessed when the team was unable to correct for them. With the reflections off the center divider, lighting, and parallax errors, most drivers would not be able to see if the robot bumper crossed the plane on the far side of the field. If they were pushing against another robot at that crucial point, it was not possible for a driver in either the center or left driver station to determine where the plane was in relation to their robot.
Rules and penalties are a difficult thing to design as they require taking into account the game, the participants and the audience.

26

True enough, and I’ll leave the discussion of the relative merits of offense and defense to the many threads that you referenced.

All in all, I agree that while an abnormally high number of matches this year were decided by penalties, and that put a damper on the “fan friendliness” of the competition, penalties are both necessary “evils” and something teams can avoid with proper training, practice, and execution.

This was the main point I was hoping to get across. If you don’t like the penalties… don’t break the rules. Yes, that was occasionally difficult to do this year, regardless of whether you were playing offense or defense, but if the penalties were not significant and match-deciding then there would not be much incentive to pay attention to them, would there?

There is a fine line between encouraging teams who are not as “capable” as others to step outside their comfort zone and try new robot designs and having offensive teams offer up haughty, harsh criticisms of those simple, annoyingly effective robots who choose to play the game in a different but still legal manner than the majority of FRC teams.

My criticism is for teams that did not make sufficient effort to avoid penalties (especially if they then complained about there being too many penalties!) Teams that did not make an effort to avoid penalties do not fit the category of “effective”, regardless of whether they play offense or defense.

If my comments were construed as a criticism of defensive machines and stragegies in general – and I could see how they could have been – then my apologies. It did seem, however, that many penalties were called as a result of defense, played poorly. I observed fewer penalties called as result of offense being played poorly. One way teams could avoid penalties was to simply focus on going counter-clockwise as fast as they could and staying away from opponents attempting to hurdle. In other words… attempting to score was an effective strategy to reduce the risk of penalties.

Jason

27

You didn’t think your argument out very well. The penalities are there to stop behavior that the game designers don’t want to happen. If I remember the details of the 2005 game correctly that penalty was a safety issue which should be a pretty strict penalty in my opinion. In 2008 game the penalty was the minimum amount that they could give before the penalty becomes utterly useless. The game designers did not want people backing up to hurdle and then continue on.

28

In my mind, the biggest issue with penalties is when they are used to enforce gameplay. The simplest and best games are the ones where penalties are not needed to make sure that teams play the game “the right way”. In an ideal world, the only penalties needed will be ones like high-speed ramming and pinning - the old standbys that show up every year - and those designed with safety in mind. The ones that are used to regulate a style of play (i.e. this year’s G22) are inevitably the ones that end up causing pain and frustration to teams, and lead to numerous matches being decided on penalties.

It’s by no means an easy task to design a game that doesn’t need penalties to be played right - I’ve faced the same problem with other competitions in the past - but when you can do it right, it makes for a much more enjoyable experience for the competitors, referees, and spectators.

29

Explain to me how every single other game on the face of the earth does this without a problem. Technically, they don’t. All of the major sports in the world have the same problems that FIRST does. What they make up for it is that they are constantly revising the same set of rules which is never going to happen unless FIRST stays with a specific game.

30

Granted. But you miss the point. The point was the reasons people complain, namely the proportion of penalty points to points scored.

In 2005, 30 points was way too much or way too little, even for a safety issue. If it’s a safety issue, disable/DQ should be the way to go, to keep the game safe. That has less of an effect on the game outcome and quite possibly only affects the team that committed the violation. Point penalty…30 points was, as I said, close to WINNING scores that year, at least in qual matches. So it’s way too high, because that’s 2 rows that don’t share a tetra, or 10 tetras not in a row(and that’s almost more than the best individual robots could score in one match), or whatever other scoring you like. It’s either too low (safety) or too high (points).

In 2008, I’m going to have to disagree. One hurdle with line crossing was 10 points. Not many teams could do more than 3-4, and many could only do laps of herd, which gave 2-4 points each in maybe 10 laps. So it’s a pretty significant chunk of scoring gone because you broke the plane inadvertently. I think they could have gone a little lower, but that’s just me. See, you don’t get an advantage from going backwards a tiny bit, and if you go backwards to hurdle, it’s blatantly obvious. So a lot of teams were penalized for doing something that gave no advantage and had no safety considerations. (Different from 2005, where safety and defensive advantage were both on the line.)

31

And ALL of the major sports have the same sets of rules year to year, and only ONE gives point penalties in any way, shape or form. NONE of the other major sports has the same problems. What’s the biggest recent rule change in football, the facemask penalty? The biggest one that really affected the game, the forward pass, was what, 60-70 years ago or more?

Now, what’s the biggest rule change in FIRST? The game. When? Every January. Not like major sports at all.

32

No they don’t. I just double checked that.

33

Which one doesn’t, and where did you get the information?

34

Only one gives points? which one?
Basketball gives a free throw which is possible points
Hocky gives a penalty shot which is a possible point
Soccer gives a penalty shot which gives a possible point
Baseball can award extra bases which could add points
Only football does NOT give the oppertunity for scoring because of penalties and none give points outright.

You mean like baseballs rule about the order of the bases you need to run (enforces the "right way to run the bases)?
Or Hockeys offsides (so players cannot stay on the opposing side of the ice)?
Or soccers offsides (so players cannot stay on the opposing side of the ice)?
Or basketballs 25 second clock (hurries the game)?
Or footballs formation rules (Forces a standard way of playing)?

All sports have rules to enforce gameplay, just as FIRST does.

I know people don’t like penalties, but without consequences (re:Penalties) there is no incentive to follow the rules.

I also understand that some believe that the penalty is too harsh, but the fact is that everyone knew the rules from day 1 (Kickoff). As such you should have planned accordingly, or changed what you were doing at the event to minimize or eliminate those penalties. The “problem with penalties” is not the game, nor the penalties … it’s those that could not (or would not) adjust to how the calls are being made (much like a pitcher needs to adjust to a strikezone dispite that it is clearly defined).

35

[quote]No they don’t. I just double checked that.

Which one doesn’t, and where did you get the information?[/quote]

You are both right. The rules in major sports very rarely change, but it is not uncommon that they may tweak the rules couple of years.

There seem to be a lot of complaints about penalties and how proffessional sports don’t have that problem. Whether they have the problem or not FIRST is way more fun and way more educational than any sport, and in my mind that is all that counts.

A bad day at FIRST is better than a good day anywhere else.

36

Golf. Lose a stroke for going out of bounds or in the water.

The other sports don’t give penalties, they give chances to score to the opponents. (And it’s pretty rare for a penalty kick in soccer, direct or indirect. It’s usually a free kick to a teammate.)

37

Golf is a sport ?!?

I thought it was an exercise in frustration :stuck_out_tongue:

38

If poker is a sport, then I would assume that golf (which at least involves walking) is one as well.

39

hmmm… After reading this thread again it seems to me that the “problem penalties,” or should I say the most frustrating ones, have been those that were very easy to incur. Most of these, like the bumping in 2005, the “zones” in 2006, and G22 in 2008, involved the drive train entering “zones” or making contact with other robots at certian times.

Might it be fair to conclude that the GDC should avoid these types of penalties, or perhaps re-word them to penalize other robot functions?

40

I have been watching this thread with some interest. It is an intriguing discussion. But I do feel the need to jump in here for a moment. I would suggest that you might want to think through the wording of the above statement carefully. I would posit that it is incorrect for you to “conclude that the GDC should” do anything. It may be proper and appropriate for you to “conclude that we suggest to the GDC that” they consider these ideas. You must be aware that you have not constrained yourselves to all the restrictions and requirements that must be considered when designing a game for FIRST/FRC. The desires, interpretations, and considerations expressed herein are (for the most part) well reasoned and constructive comments. However, they are (for the most part) delivered from one particular viewpoint: that of a team participating in the competition. They (for the most part) do not incorporate the constraints or limitations imposed on the design of the game by the FIRST Board Of Directors, the event managers, the venues, the FIRST organization, the Founders, the Regional Directors, the liability lawyers, the IP sources, the KOP suppliers, the media interests, the great folks on the FIRST staff, the developers, the international partners, the financial officers, etc., etc., etc.

All of these groups levy requirements on the design of the game. Many of them are mutually exclusive. Frequently, we get constraints from within the same group that may conflict with one of their own previous requirements. Very few of them have been considered in the preceding discussion in this thread. It is only after you are aware of ALL these requirements, and can find a way to satisfy all of them (or fail to satisfy all of them equally, which is the more common reality) that you can conclude what should be incorporated into the game design.

Several channels have been established to gather game suggestions, desirements and requirements from the teams. They include the threads in the FRC Game Design forum on DC, the team forums, and the direct e-mail channels, to mention only a few. Please use them to let FIRST and the GDC know your CONSTRUCTIVE comments, feedback, ideas, and desires. I can guarantee that every one of them will be read and considered. But please be aware that just because it is read and considered does not mean that it will be incorporated into a future game. What appears to be a reasonable idea from the viewpoint of a team may be, unbeknownst to you, in direct conflict with some other hard requirement established by another part of FIRST.

-dave

.