[robocup-small] End of discussions on the proposed rule changes
David Ball
dball at itee.uq.edu.au
Sun Dec 18 09:41:55 EST 2005
Dear SSL,
We need to bring the discussions on the proposed rule changes to an end.
If you have not responded yet please do so now. I have seen responses
from the following teams:
B-Smart
FU-Fighters (only on the field size)
RFC Kothen
Toin Albatross
CoolRUNners
ZjuNlict
Owaribito-CU
That is not that many teams!
The original email is repeated below.
The TC will look at the current discussions and get the 2006 rules
finished and release them to the list in January.
Regards,
David Ball
Dear SSL,
This email gives the Technical Committee's proposed rule changes for 2006.
These proposed rule changes come from community suggestions and from
ones generated internally by the TC. The TC has considered many rule
change aspects, some we were unanimous about, some we are split between
multiple decisions. Therefore some rule changes have multiple options
under them. Please read the following rule changes carefully and give us
your thoughts. Remember that last year strong community feeling against
some proposed rule changes did result in changes from the proposal to
the final rule changes. Please tell us what you think, especially on the
issues that have multiple proposals! Also if you don't think we have
covered an issue that you think is important please raise it now. As
this email is late, community discussions on theses rule proposals will
be allowed until the 16th of December.
INCREASE FIELD SIZE.
No change to the rules for 2006.
WALLS
No change to the rules for 2006.
LOCAL VISION
No change to the rules for 2006.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
PHYSICAL ENERGY BUDGET
No changes to the rules for 2006.
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.
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).
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.
RED CARDS / SAFETY ENFORCEMENT:
Proposal :To remove a robot for X-minute when a yellow card is given to
a team.
Rationale: Currently, the yellow card and red card are not very
effective. Typically, when a team commits a bookable offense, a warning
is given first. On the next offense, a yellow card. And finally the red
card. Which means a team would not have felt the punishment until the
third offense.
Implementation:
1) When a yellow card offense occurs, the game is stopped. (as per normal)
2) A yellow card signal is sent from referee box to team host computers.
(as per normal)
3) The team host computer that received the yellow card must move a
robot to the field peripheral so that it can be physically removed by
the robot handler.
4) The game continues as per normal
5) The robot must sit out for at least X minutes (current proposal is 2
minute). On the next game stoppage after X-minute, the robot may be
placed back by the robot handler (no signal from referee box will be
given). The yellow card status will be checked only at the instance
stoppage occurs. For example, if a stoppage occurs 1 minute 55 second
after a stout, the robot cannot be put back in 5 seconds into the
stoppage. This is to prevent teams from delaying stoppages so that they
can get their robot back in.
Note: The referee box needs to be modified so that it can keep tracks of
all yellow card status.
Suggestions for offenses worth a time penalty:
----------------------------------------------
You could give a time penalty when
- The two defender rule is applicable
- a robot bumps into another "on purpose"
- a team couldn't take a free kick for the third time in a row
- a robot enters the 50mm radius at free kicks (restarts) for
the third time so the free kick need to be restarted
- a robot kicks the ball from the throw-in directly or almost
directly off the field repetitive, so the game gets stuck.
- a robot loses parts bigger than a screw
Advantages over yellow/red card system only:
--------------------------------------------
- The decision for a time penalty is easier to make for the referee.
It penalizes misdoings without taking the
chances for the affected team to win.
- After the penalty is over. The misdoing is forgiven, no further
discussion
- For the case of a wrong decision, there is no need for discussion
since the time penalty is quite short and won't turnaround the game (If
a team has a lot of misdoings then this would be a disadvantage for
the team and that would be okay then)
- The game could get more fluently since you take out a robot and don't
have to stop the while game, with all robots taking their
best position again. (Sometime you will have to stop the game because
the robot that has to halt is in the way, but then you
could "halt" the game and restart it without a "stop" so that all
robots are still at their positions when the game goes on
FREE KICK/KICKOFF PROCEDURE:
During restarts, allow a robot to touch the ball multiple times within
50mm of traveled distance. This is to minimise the number of restarts
because of minor loss of contact of the ball that does not result in an
advantage for the team. A more complete phrasing:
The first robot to touch the ball for a restart is designated as the
kicking robot, where the referee has placed the ball is called the
restart position, and the area within a 50mm radius of the restart
position is designated the "restart zone".
For a free kick to be taken, the center of the ball must move outside of
restart zone. Once the ball has traveled outside the restart zone, the
kicker cannot be currently touching the ball, and may not touch the ball
a second time if it was the last robot to touch the ball. Opponents
must stay 500mm from the ball until first contact is made. As before,
violating any part of this procedure results in a free kick being
awarded to the opposing team at the point of the infraction.
Note that the kicking robot may touch, break constant, move, and dribble
the ball however it wants, as long as the ball does not travel outside
the restart zone during such contact, and no second touch is made after
the ball has gone beyond it. Also note that the opposing teams' robots
may approach the ball as soon as the kicking robot makes first contact,
and need not wait for the ball to travel outside the 50mm radius.
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.
--
Regards,
David Ball
The School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering.
The University of Queensland.
Australia
Email: dball at itee.uq.edu.au
*Job Titles*
PhD Student - Thesis Topic: Adaptive Agents: Opponent Modeling and Exploiting
RoboCupJunior Tutor and Competition Technical Organiser
Technical Committee Chair for Small Size League RoboCup 2006
Top Secret SAP Contract: All I can say is that it involves robots!!!!
Bai Rui Taekwon-Do Instructor
_______________________________________________
robocup-small mailing list
robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small
--
Regards,
David Ball
The School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering.
The University of Queensland.
Australia
Email: dball at itee.uq.edu.au
*Job Titles*
PhD Student - Thesis Topic: Adaptive Agents: Opponent Modelling and Exploiting
RoboCupJunior Tutor and Competition Technical Organiser
Technical Committee Chair for Small Size League RoboCup 2006
Top Secret SAP Contract: All I can say is that it involves robots!!!!
Bai Rui Taekwon-Do Instructor
More information about the robocup-small
mailing list