[robocup-nao] robocup-nao Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4

Wed Mar 4 09:15:21 EST 2009

 Who know the detail of MSRS simulated competition at RoboCup2009?

2008/7/5, robocup-nao-request at cc.gatech.edu <robocup-nao-request at cc.gatech.edu>:
> Send robocup-nao mailing list submissions to
>        robocup-nao at cc.gatech.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-nao
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        robocup-nao-request at cc.gatech.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        robocup-nao-owner at cc.gatech.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of robocup-nao digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Final Nao rules for 2008 (Stefan Czarnetzki)
>   2. Re: Final Nao rules for 2008 (Hans-Dieter Burkhard)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:16:11 +0200
> From: Stefan Czarnetzki <Stefan.Czarnetzki at tu-dortmund.de>
> Subject: Re: [robocup-nao] Final Nao rules for 2008
> To: RoboCup Nao Mailing List <robocup-nao at cc.gatech.edu>
> Message-ID: <486E067B.1080909 at tu-dortmund.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Yes, I agree, the player pushing rule is a difficult one this time. And
> I didn't want to push for allowing more competition for the ball.
> But it is my impression that a robot which is handling the ball in a way
> that increases the situation in tiny incremental steps (continuously
> adjusting its orientation towards the opponent goal, sometimes touching
> the ball a bit, maybe even a very slow dribbling behavior) could not be
> approached, hindered or stopped in any way given the current rule.
> If the defender acts correctly and only positions itself between
> opponent with ball and its own goal, then it could not do anything or
> would even have to move backwards step by step in order to not come into
> the 50cm range of the offensive robot, which would be closer to the ball
> and handling it, thus showing interest (see example 2 in the rules).
> This is a loophole that should be considered, either by updating the
> local game stuck with something like "no big advancements over the time
> of 1 minute" or by allowing the defender to remain standing in the way
> to block it.
>
> By the way, the rules don't say anything about the ball, yet. I suppose
> we still play with the standard balls from the 4legged league?
> Since the hardware league is playing with orange tennis balls, our
> current ball should be specified here, perhaps with a note that next
> year we will probably also use tennis balls (which are easier to obtain).
>
>
> Stefan
>
>
> Michael Quinlan wrote:
> > Hi Stefan,
> >
> > Point 1:
> > -  So I agree that teams with get up routines should be allowed to use
> > them (and should gain an advantage). I would teams to inform the
> > referee at the beginning of the match if they posses to ability to
> > stand up. When a robot falls over it is then given sufficient time to
> > stand up before being penalised (if it fails).
> > - I also like the idea of moving the robots to the side (basically the
> > same as the ball out of bounds). For example they would be moved
> > sideways (to the opposite side from the ball) and also 1m from
> > backwards away from the ball.
> >
> > Point 2:
> >  - This is hard one to get right (and we are open to suggestions to
> > make this better).  It depends on how much value we place on robot
> > safety, I for one don't want to see my robot broken because another
> > robot fell into it. BUT I also love to see robots competing for the
> > ball, how to achieve this balance is difficult.
> >  - I would probably add that the keeper can not be called for
> > violating the 50cm rule when it stays inside the penalty box. Maybe
> > this is the case where the offensive robot has to kick the ball or its
> > penalized for being within 50cm of the keeper.
> >
> > Keep the suggestions coming ...
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > Stefan Czarnetzki wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I would like to encourage clarification on two issues:
> >>
> >> 1. The rule concerning fallen robots.
> >> As Dieter said, the rule is not in the file yet and there are still
> >> some questions. To those I would like to add, that a robot should not
> >> be able to get an advantage out of this penalty, i.e. it should never
> >> be placed nearer to the ball than it was when falling down. This
> >> might happen if robots are put in without any time penalty at the
> >> halfway line. If the ball is in front of the opponent goal, a robot
> >> falling down in the back corner of its own half could gain nearly 2
> >> meters without losing much time.
> >> Additionally it should be considered that stand-up motions are indeed
> >> possible. I know of at least three persons having developed such
> >> motions independently. Having these motions would make the game much
> >> nicer to look at and should be an advantage.
> >>
> >> Either a moderate time penalty (10-15s) or alternative points for
> >> replacement might be a solution. Since we already have the throw-in
> >> line, we could also use it for placing fallen robots.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. The player "pushing" rule.
> >> Preventing the robots from entering a 50cm zone around each other
> >> might result in a nicer game without robots lying on the ground all
> >> the time and hopefully also in our Naos surviving a bit longer.
> >> On the other hand this rule gives a robot all the time it wants for
> >> positioning around the ball. Others would not be allowed to come
> >> closer, not even the goalie in its own penaly area. Touching the ball
> >> once in a while prevents global game stuck and achieving a better
> >> shooting orientation might be considered a change substantially
> >> enough to prevent local game stuck, too.
> >> The player pushing rule should be clarified with reference to the
> >> local game stuck rule to prevent such situations.
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Stefan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ?etin Meri?li wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> The finalized Nao rules are uploaded to the league website
> >>> (http://www.tzi.de/4legged/pub/Website/Downloads/NaoRules2008.pdf).
> >>> The changes can be listed as:
> >>>
> >>> - Number of players is reduced to 3 vs. 3.
> >>> - Player pushing rule is changed in order to minimize physical
> >>> contact of the robots.
> >>> - Human assistance (by the assistant referees) is allowed on fallen
> >>> robots. They will get a zero seconds penalty and moved to the
> >>> halfway line.
> >>> - Local game stuck rule is modified.
> >>> - Ball holding rule is modified.
> >>> - It is allowed to play without colored parts on the shoulders and
> >>> on the feet.
> >>> - It is allowed to fix wrist joints with glue/transparent duct tape.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for the delay, and hope to see you all in Suzhou!
> >>>
> >>> 2008 Technical and Organizing Committees
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> robocup-nao mailing list
> >>> robocup-nao at cc.gatech.edu
> >>> https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-nao
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> robocup-nao mailing list
> >> robocup-nao at cc.gatech.edu
> >> https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-nao
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:35:32 +0200 (MEST)
> From: Hans-Dieter Burkhard <hdb at informatik.hu-berlin.de>
> Subject: Re: [robocup-nao] Final Nao rules for 2008
> To: robocup-nao at cc.gatech.edu, Stefan.Czarnetzki at tu-dortmund.de
> Message-ID:
>        <200807041335.m64DZWxM026250 at mailslv1.informatik.hu-berlin.de>
> Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi,
>
> I have no real idea, but try to understand the consequences
> if we want to prevent robots from falling down by such rules.
>
>
> If we look from the perspective of the ball: The rule
> permits only one player in a region of at least 25 cm
> around the ball. Consequences:
> - No direct fight for the ball is possible.
> - An active player inside of that region is really "safe".
>
> Maybe we have options like these:
> - We could extend the ball holding rule, such that the
>  time in this region is restricted to e.g. 30 seconds.
>  After that time the ball must be kicked away, the player must
>  have left the region, or the player is penalized.
> - such a rule (or similar ones) should not be applied for the
>  goalie (there the game stuck rule is applicable)?
>
>
> Dieter
>
>
> P.S. what is state with the referee box? Will it exist?  - D.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Yes, I agree, the player pushing rule is a difficult one this time. And
> > I didn't want to push for allowing more competition for the ball.
> > But it is my impression that a robot which is handling the ball in a way
> > that increases the situation in tiny incremental steps (continuously
> > adjusting its orientation towards the opponent goal, sometimes touching
> > the ball a bit, maybe even a very slow dribbling behavior) could not be
> > approached, hindered or stopped in any way given the current rule.
> > If the defender acts correctly and only positions itself between
> > opponent with ball and its own goal, then it could not do anything or
> > would even have to move backwards step by step in order to not come into
> > the 50cm range of the offensive robot, which would be closer to the ball
> > and handling it, thus showing interest (see example 2 in the rules).
> > This is a loophole that should be considered, either by updating the
> > local game stuck with something like "no big advancements over the time
> > of 1 minute" or by allowing the defender to remain standing in the way
> > to block it.
> >
> > By the way, the rules don't say anything about the ball, yet. I suppose
> > we still play with the standard balls from the 4legged league?
> > Since the hardware league is playing with orange tennis balls, our
> > current ball should be specified here, perhaps with a note that next
> > year we will probably also use tennis balls (which are easier to obtain).
> >
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> >
> > Michael Quinlan wrote:
> > > Hi Stefan,
> > >
> > > Point 1:
> > > -  So I agree that teams with get up routines should be allowed to use
> > > them (and should gain an advantage). I would teams to inform the
> > > referee at the beginning of the match if they posses to ability to
> > > stand up. When a robot falls over it is then given sufficient time to
> > > stand up before being penalised (if it fails).
> > > - I also like the idea of moving the robots to the side (basically the
> > > same as the ball out of bounds). For example they would be moved
> > > sideways (to the opposite side from the ball) and also 1m from
> > > backwards away from the ball.
> > >
> > > Point 2:
> > >  - This is hard one to get right (and we are open to suggestions to
> > > make this better).  It depends on how much value we place on robot
> > > safety, I for one don't want to see my robot broken because another
> > > robot fell into it. BUT I also love to see robots competing for the
> > > ball, how to achieve this balance is difficult.
> > >  - I would probably add that the keeper can not be called for
> > > violating the 50cm rule when it stays inside the penalty box. Maybe
> > > this is the case where the offensive robot has to kick the ball or its
> > > penalized for being within 50cm of the keeper.
> > >
> > > Keep the suggestions coming ...
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > Stefan Czarnetzki wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I would like to encourage clarification on two issues:
> > >>
> > >> 1. The rule concerning fallen robots.
> > >> As Dieter said, the rule is not in the file yet and there are still
> > >> some questions. To those I would like to add, that a robot should not
> > >> be able to get an advantage out of this penalty, i.e. it should never
> > >> be placed nearer to the ball than it was when falling down. This
> > >> might happen if robots are put in without any time penalty at the
> > >> halfway line. If the ball is in front of the opponent goal, a robot
> > >> falling down in the back corner of its own half could gain nearly 2
> > >> meters without losing much time.
> > >> Additionally it should be considered that stand-up motions are indeed
> > >> possible. I know of at least three persons having developed such
> > >> motions independently. Having these motions would make the game much
> > >> nicer to look at and should be an advantage.
> > >>
> > >> Either a moderate time penalty (10-15s) or alternative points for
> > >> replacement might be a solution. Since we already have the throw-in
> > >> line, we could also use it for placing fallen robots.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2. The player "pushing" rule.
> > >> Preventing the robots from entering a 50cm zone around each other
> > >> might result in a nicer game without robots lying on the ground all
> > >> the time and hopefully also in our Naos surviving a bit longer.
> > >> On the other hand this rule gives a robot all the time it wants for
> > >> positioning around the ball. Others would not be allowed to come
> > >> closer, not even the goalie in its own penaly area. Touching the ball
> > >> once in a while prevents global game stuck and achieving a better
> > >> shooting orientation might be considered a change substantially
> > >> enough to prevent local game stuck, too.
> > >> The player pushing rule should be clarified with reference to the
> > >> local game stuck rule to prevent such situations.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Stefan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ?etin Meri?li wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> The finalized Nao rules are uploaded to the league website
> > >>> (http://www.tzi.de/4legged/pub/Website/Downloads/NaoRules2008.pdf).
> > >>> The changes can be listed as:
> > >>>
> > >>> - Number of players is reduced to 3 vs. 3.
> > >>> - Player pushing rule is changed in order to minimize physical
> > >>> contact of the robots.
> > >>> - Human assistance (by the assistant referees) is allowed on fallen
> > >>> robots. They will get a zero seconds penalty and moved to the
> > >>> halfway line.
> > >>> - Local game stuck rule is modified.
> > >>> - Ball holding rule is modified.
> > >>> - It is allowed to play without colored parts on the shoulders and
> > >>> on the feet.
> > >>> - It is allowed to fix wrist joints with glue/transparent duct tape.
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry for the delay, and hope to see you all in Suzhou!
> > >>>
> > >>> 2008 Technical and Organizing Committees
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> robocup-nao mailing list
> > >>> robocup-nao at cc.gatech.edu
> > >>> https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-nao
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> robocup-nao mailing list
> > >> robocup-nao at cc.gatech.edu
> > >> https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-nao
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > robocup-nao mailing list
> > robocup-nao at cc.gatech.edu
> > https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-nao
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> robocup-nao mailing list
> robocup-nao at cc.gatech.edu
> https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-nao
>
>
> End of robocup-nao Digest, Vol 3, Issue 4
> *****************************************
>