[robocup-small] End of discussions on the proposed rule changes

[Luis Martinez]

HI ALL

WE SEND OUR COMMENTS IN DEC 5, BUT WE WERE NOT IN
DAVID'S LIST SO ONCE MORE HERE ARE EAGLE KNIGHTS
(MEXICO) COMMENTS ABOUT RULES CHANGES.
 
INCREASE FIELD SIZE.

-> 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

-> OK
 
LOCAL VISION

-> 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

-> EXCELENT, DIAGRAMS SHOULD HELP.
 
OFFICIAL COLOURS

-> 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

-> 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

-> OK
 
VIRTUAL ENERGY BUDGET

-> OK
 
PHYSICAL ENERGY BUDGET

-> OK
 
INCREASE NUMBER OF ROBOTS

-> OPTION A
 
CHIP KICKING

-> B2
  
LENGTH OF PERIODS / TIMEOUT / HALFTIME:

 -> A
 
RED CARDS / SAFETY ENFORCEMENT:

-> OK
 
FREE KICK/KICKOFF PROCEDURE:

-> OK
 
TWO ATTACKERS RULE

-> OK

                           LUIS A. MARTINEZ G.
                             EAGLE KNIGHTS
                               ITAM,MEXICO


 --- David Ball <dball at itee.uq.edu.au> escribió:

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


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

>   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/