[robocup-small] Re: Proposed Rule Changes for SSL 2006

Luis Martinez arrobalf at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 5 16:59:31 EST 2005


 HI ALL

 THIS IS EAGLE KNIGHTS COMMENTS ABOUT RULES CHANGES.
 
 INCREASE FIELD SIZE.
 No change to the rules for 2006.
 -> WE SUPPORT THE INCREASE OF FIELD
 SIZE (AS RAUL HAS PROPOSED), WE THINK THAT THE GAME
WILL 
 IMPROVE AND THE BALL WILL BE MORE TIME IN PLAY THAN
IN RESTARTS.
 
 WALLS
 No change to the rules for 2006.
 -> OK
 
 LOCAL VISION
 No change to the rules for 2006.
 -> WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THERE MUST BE SOME KIND
OF
 INCENTIVE (FOR EXAMPLE, ALLOW TEAMS WITH LOCAL VISION
TO HAVE 
 ONE MORE ROBOT PLAYING IN THE FIELD THAN TEAMS THAT
USE 
 GLOBAL VISION) TO GRADUALLY START THE CHANGE FROM
GLOBAL TO 
 LOCAL VISION.
 
 RESTART RULES
 This is not so much a rule change but a desire to
rewrite 
 some of the restart rules that are not clear.
 For example the distance that the defending robot
must stay 
 from the penalty mark during penalty kicks, is it a 
 semicircle distance or a line parallel to the goal
line. For 
 example simplifying the rules regarding where to
restart the 
 ball. For example including diagrams in the rules.
 -> EXCELENT, DIAGRAMS SHOULD HELP.
 
 OFFICIAL COLOURS
 If a team wishes for their opposing team to use
 official colours then they must, otherwise teams are
 free to use whatever colours they want. (Of course it
 must still be yellow and blue markers, etc).
 -> THIS SOUND GOOD,BUT WE THINK WE SHOULD ALSO HAVE
 OFFICIAL PINK,GREEN, AND CYAN MARKERS TO RESOLVE ANY
 CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN TEAMS, IF WE HAVE IT FOR BLUE
AND
 YELLOW WHY NOT FOR THE OTHER COLORS AS WELL?
 
 GOALS
 We propose adding a round steel bar at the front of
 the goal, the bottom of which is 150mm from the
 carpet.  The bar is 10mm in diameter, and will
provide
 a firm object to hold the net above it, and ensure
 that balls entering the goal are below 150mm.  It
will
 be black in color to avoid interfering with global
 vision.  Also, because the bar is rounded, it should
 not damage robots near the maximum height. The net
 will be a 
 thin wire mesh similar to Osaka.
 -> GOOD, OSAKA NET WAS NOT STRONG ENOUGH AND WE SAW
 SOME PROBLEMS WITH IT IN SOME MATCHES, THE ROUND
STEEL
 BAR SHOULD SOLVE THIS PROBLEMS.
 
 BALL
 Many teams over the past few years have proposed a
 replacement ball for the golf ball. It is very hard
 for the TC to decide
 on a change to the ball between competitions.
 Therefore we wish to move the focus of the
discussions
 to the competitions themselves. So far, several new
 balls have been proposed; a less elastic ball, a
 lighter ball such as the one made out of foam, the
dog
 league ball and the hockey ball. Which ball is
 suitable for the SSL? We need to see them
demonstrated
 on a real field at the RoboCup competition. Therefore
 the TC proposes that teams that are keen for a ball
 change may champion the idea under a Ball Technical
 Challenge as follows:
 - Teams prepare a report on their proposed new ball
 for distribution at the RoboCup competition.
 - There must be a practical real robot demonstration,
 showing dribbling (obstacle avoidance), passing and
 shooting using a ball (or balls) the team recommends.
 Demonstrations that have two teams against each other
 are encouraged.
 -  Other teams will discuss the idea and either they
 or the TC/OC will vote.
 - *** It is important to note that there may be no
 winner if the other teams or TC decide that the ball
 is not suitable for the SSL. ***
 - If there is a winner a trophy will be awarded to
the
 team who 
 recommended the new ball.
 
 -> OK
 
 VIRTUAL ENERGY BUDGET
 The TC has decided on the same course of action as
for
 the ball. If you feel strongly about this concept
then
 champion the idea and bring your system to the
 competition. This has three parts and a team can
 attempt 1, 2 or 3 of the parts:
 1. A system observes the motion of  each robot and
 calculates the energy consumed using the vision
 system. So, the TC would like to propose to develop a
 vision system for observing the virtual energy of
each
 robot. 
 The system has to be able to distinguish the IDs of
 both teams' robots and track them. Moreover, the
 system can calculate the consumed energy of each
 robot. This must be sent to both teams.
 2. An autonomous referee system that can detect
 infringements of the rules and sends commands to the
 teams computers.
 3. An autonomous referee robot. This is a robot that
 can detect 
 infringements of the rules (most likely from a global
 vision system) and can pick up the ball and move it
to
 the restart locations. Stop/Halt type commands are
 still sent to the other teams computers from an PC
via
 serial.
 The TC proposes that teams that are keen for a these
 systems may 
 champion the idea under a Virtual Energy/Autonomous
 Referee Technical Challenge as follows:
 - Teams prepare a report on their proposed new system
 for distribution at the RoboCup competition.
 - Their must be a practical real robot demonstration
 showing 
 appropriate parts of the system.
 -  Other teams will discuss the idea and either they
 or the TC/OC will vote.
 - *** It is important to note that there may be no
 winner if the other teams or TC decide that none of
 the systems is suitable for the SSL. ***
 - If there is a winner a trophy will be awarded to
the
 team who 
 designed the new system.

 -> OK
 
 PHYSICAL ENERGY BUDGET
 No changes to the rules for 2006.
 -> OK
 
 INCREASE NUMBER OF ROBOTS
 Three proposals for this rule change.
 A. No Change.
 B. Increase the maximum number of robots per team to
 6.
 C. Provide the option for teams to increase the
number
 of robots to x but must reduce the robot outer
 diameter to x mm. I suggest 8 robots with a decrease
 to 120mm. This means that there could be 5 v 5, 5 v 8
 and 8 v 8 matches. It is really a small amount of
work
 for teams that don't want to increase the number of
 robots to ensure that they can handle detecting up to
 8 opponent robots. This is similar to how the local
 vision rules provide the option for teams to work on
 local vision.
 -> OPTION A
 
 CHIP KICKING
 We would like to redefine the rule regarding chip
 kicking for to 
 encourage using it to pass. The proposal is then:
 A. No Change. Leave the rule as a limit on chip kicks
 from restarts.
 B. Change the rule for restarts.
 If B is your choice, there are two options for the
new
 rule, these are:
 1. Allow chip kicks from the first touch of the ball
 and modify the free kick rule so that indirect means
 it must touch one of
 your team, other than the kicker, before entering the
 goal AFTER it has  gone below 150mm. If the ball
 enters the goal without meeting this rule  then an
 indirect freekick is awarded from where the chip kick
 was taken.
 2. Allows chip kicks from the first touch of the ball
 on restarts. A chip kick begins whenever the top of
 the ball travels above 150mm from  the ground plane.
A
 chip kick ends whenever the ball touches another
 robot, and the top of the ball is under 150mm. A goal
 cannot be scored by a chip kick. Any such attempt at
a
 goal will result in 'no goal' and a goal kick awarded
 to the defending team.
 Please choose whether you want to change the rule or
 not (A or B), and if you choose B, which rule you
 prefer (1 or 2).
 
 -> B2
 
 
 LENGTH OF PERIODS / TIMEOUT / HALFTIME:
 Two proposals here:
 A. Decrease the half time to 5 minutes.
 B. Decrease the half time to 5 minutes, increase the
 length of halves
 to 15 minutes and decrease the maximum timeout time
to
 5 minutes.
 
 -> A
 
 RED CARDS / SAFETY ENFORCEMENT:
 -> OK
 
 
 FREE KICK/KICKOFF PROCEDURE:
 -> OK
 
 TWO ATTACKERS RULE
 The two attackers in the defense zone rule will be
 removed.  It was originally motivated to protect the
 goalkeeper from being pushed or otherwise interfered
 with by multiple attackers.  However, it is the
 opinion of the TC that the rule is no longer
necessary
 as the "goalkeeper touching" rule offers sufficient
 protection for the goalkeeper.
 
 -> OK


                             EAGLE KNIGHTS
                                MEXICO


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>   Ing. Luis Alfredo Martinez Gomez
     
     Laboratorio de Robotica
     ITAM, MEXICO
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis! 
Regístrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/ 



More information about the robocup-small mailing list