[robocup-small] rules discussion

[Raul Rojas]

There were many comments about the rules. That is good, but now
we have to make a good summary of the main issues put forward by the
teams and try to see where there is agreement, and where not.
I think that most points could be decided by a vote. If the
vote is too close (like 10 to 11, for example), the technical committee
decides on that issue.

Let me try to summarize some points and say something about the field
wall
at the end:

Rule 1:

There are two proposals: to limit all pushing by the robots to 50 cm,
not to limit it. I am for not limiting the distance a robot can push
the ball (with or without dribbler), because it is an artificial
limitation
which actually decreases the range of options for a team. Passing will
not
improve: such a limitation will actually make it easier to trap a robot 
handling the ball. Just go against this robot with two or three robots
and that's it, it is trapped and will not be able to pass, or do
anything.

I propose that teams with dribbler can also push the ball beyond the 50
cm limit (but with dribbler motor off), so that all teams have the same
range of options.

My proposal does not affect any team negatively. The proposed 50cm limit
would
actually empoverish the game. Let the range of options open, this will
produce
more strategic variability and better games.

Rule 2:

there seems to be agreement that moving the ball a little inside is
better.
Some teams think that having a slope on the boundary makes easier to let
the
ball roll back.

Rule 6:

I did not really see any convincing argument for having "official
colors", which
become unofficial once the lightning is left variable and is not
standard.

Rule 7:

6 robots per team seems to be not a very popular idea


WALL:

I agree with the Cornell team, that dropping the wall sounds nice, but
it has
actually made the game deteriorate. Seven seconds of average
uninterrupted game
is just too low a value. If there is no other possible solution, I am
also
for reintroducing the wall. We cannot compare our league with mid-size
or
the dogs. Their robots are five to ten times slower: having no wall does
not
stop the game there as often as in our case. Making the game longer is
not the 
fix we need. We need to keep the ball in play. If the only way to do
this is by
having a wall, let us have a wall.

This is such an important issue that we should have a discussion/vote
exclusively
about it.

Raul Rojas
FU Fighters Team




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu
[mailto:robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu] Im Auftrag von Raffaello
D'Andrea
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2004 04:46
An: robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
Betreff: [robocup-small] Comments


Our final comments:

1. There should be a statement by the rules committee to confirm that
the 20% rule is in effect at any instant of the game, including during a
chip kick.  This will prevent last minute disputes at competition.

2. The enlargement of the keep-out area around an inbounding robot is
very important. In conjunction with the 10 cm offset it should improve
the chances of a successful throw-in.

3. There is a major problem with the quality of play due to the ball
being out of bounds most of the time.  We don't think the proposed
changes are enough to make a significant improvement.  We think that the
single best thing we could do to improve quality of play is to bring
back the walls. 
The walls not being there on a real soccer pitch is not a good enough
reason to not have them. 



*****************************************
  Prof. Raffaello D'Andrea
  101 Rhodes Hall
  Sibley School of Mech. & Aero. Engr.
  Cornell University
  Ithaca, NY 14853-7501
  http://www.mae.cornell.edu/Raff
  (607) 255-0710 (Voice)
  (607) 255-1222 (FAX)
***************************************** 

_______________________________________________
robocup-small mailing list
robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small