[robocup-small] Ideas for 2007 Rules
Gordon Wyeth
wyeth at itee.uq.edu.au
Mon Oct 16 02:17:13 EDT 2006
Offside might introduce some interesting defence strategies as well. It is not
so attractive to form a wall across the goal if that also allows the attackers
into your half of the field. Offside could be a very interesting development for
small size, and the league seems mature enough to handle it now.
Gordon Wyeth
(ex-RoboRoos and former Small-Size chair)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu
> [mailto:robocup-small-bounces at cc.gatech.edu] On Behalf Of Sheng Yu
> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2006 3:30 PM
> To: robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
> Subject: Re: [robocup-small] Ideas for 2007 Rules
>
> I am a former developer in ZjuNlict.
>
> For the problem of too powerful corner kicks, offside might be
> nice choice to prevent it. So why not introduce offside to our
> small-size league?
>
> As the increasing of the field, offside might be a very common
> phenomenon.Therefore, most teams now set one or two players
> just staying near the forbidden area even when they score less than
> the opponent because there is no offside rule in our game. If we have
> offside rule, the team might be able to put more players to offense.
>
> It is also a teachnical challenge for all teams to handle the
> offside well.
>
> Yu Sheng
>
>
> >From: James Bruce <bruce at andrew.cmu.edu>
> >To: robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
> >CC: small-size-tc at tzi.de
> >Subject: [robocup-small] Ideas for 2007 Rules
> >Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:27:31 +0800
> >
> >Hi everyone,
> >
> >The following are my *personal* thoughts on the rules changes I think
> >might be useful for the league. I'm not speaking in any official way
> >at this point, merely putting out these ideas for discussion. In a
> >few weeks the TC will take the public discussion to form concrete
> >rules proposals. Please post any rules changes you would
> like to see,
> >as now is the time to have them heard and discussed.
> >
> >Jim Bruce
> >
> >================================
> >
> >- Move to a partially automatic ethernet-based referee box
> >
> > I liked the demonstration by Plasma-Z on semi-automated
> refereeing.
> > To make such a system practical, we would need to move to an
> > ethernet-based referee box. This has some other
> advantages: (1) no
> > more need for split-serial cables, and finding long
> ethernet cables
> > is much easier. (2) it makes it easier to verify teams
> are connected
> > to the referee using a "heartbeat" message. (3) it is
> much easier to
> > find computers with two ethernet ports now compared to an extra
> > serial port. (4) if the long term plan is to move to a
> shared vision
> > system, we will need to develop a shared ethernet-based
> > communications system anyway.
> >
> > The challenge, of course, is transitioning to a new system, and
> > helping teams to correctly set up separate ethernet networks on
> > their computers (we do not want one shared system, as it opens up
> > all sorts of problems with communication interference).
> >
> > We could try to develop an ethernet+serial referee box during the
> > transition period. I would be willing to help out in
> that effort.
> >
> >- Decrease timeout time to 5 minutes
> >
> > Motivation: keep the games moving, and get them back
> under an hour.
> > Teams need to be ready for games.
> >
> >- Are chip kicks now too powerful for the goalie?
> >
> > Proposal: allow a second defender to enter the defense area for a
> > limited time (3 seconds perhaps?)
> > Alternate Proposal: split the defense area into a small "no two
> > defenders" area, and a larger "no goalie touching" area.
> This will
> > allow defenses a better chance of blocking while still preventing
> > walls across the entire goal.
> >
> > Motivation: In the China open last week, for the first time two
> > teams capable of "header" shots met each other (CMDragons,
> > ZJUNlict). After some early games adjusting things, we ended up
> > doing a TV demo that resulted in a 4-3 score after less than 8
> > minutes of play. That projects out to a 16-12 or 16-15
> score at the
> > end of the game, which is probably a little too high.
> >
> > On the other hand, maybe corner kicks *should* be dangerous, just
> > like in real soccer. If a team can complete too high a
> percentage
> > of corner kicks however, this can become a problem.
> >
> >- Teams must prove kickers are legal
> >
> > Right now, there are a lot of chip kicker designs, including
> > short-travel wedges (the FU-Fighters 2005 design), wedges that
> > travel near the robot, and "scoops" that sweep outward from the
> > robot. Some are easy to prove legal, such as the short travel
> > wedge, since the ball cannot ever violate the 20% rule throughout
> > the travel. Scoop kickers are a bit more problematic,
> as legality
> > depends on the dynamics. The ball *could* become
> illegal, but its
> > unclear if it *does*. At the last competition the rules
> committee
> > ended up having to show kickers were illegal, when
> really the burden
> > should be on the teams.
> >
> >- General kick speed limitation?
> > Maybe we should limit kicks to some reasonable upper
> limit, such as
> > 10 m/s (CMDragons was using 15 m/s for the last three
> games). What
> > is needed however is some way of enforcing this. I
> don't have any
> > good ideas on this, but maybe someone else does.
> >
> >- Increase team size to 6 robots
> > I think this might be the year to increase the number of
> robots, to
> > add more possibilities for passing, and to get closer to
> 11-vs-11 in
> > a manageable way. Teams are scoring now, so we don't have the
> > situation of a few years ago with many 0-0 or 1-0 games.
> However,
> > in order to prevent teams from stacking to defense too much, we
> > could *require* that at least one robot stay as a forward at all
> > times (i.e. a team must keep one robot on the offense side of the
> > field at all times). This is kind of a reverse-offsides rule.
> >
> >- small field size increase (outer size unchanged)
> >
> > With kicks now given 100mm from the border, the outer
> 300mm border
> > is not really necessary. Thus, without any changes to vision
> > systems, we could decrease the outer border to 200mm on
> each side,
> > enlarging the field by 200mm in both dimensions. In our lab, we
> > would not have enough space for this change, and this is probably
> > the case for many teams. However, the size difference is not so
> > large, so teams should be able to verify easily that
> they can play
> > on such a field.
> >
> >- No travel support for teams that have not participated in a local
> > RoboCup competition or a RoboCup international competition within
> > the last two years. (or maybe, no admittance, with the exception
> > that some local teams may be allowed to compete).
> >
> > Motivation: we still have a problem with teams that come to the
> > competition but do not play, even with the "banned for two years"
> > stipulation currently in the rules. I'm interesting in
> hearing what
> > people think about this issue, or if they have other
> approaches to
> > the addressing the problem.
> >_______________________________________________
> >robocup-small mailing list
> >robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
> >https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small
>
>
>
More information about the robocup-small
mailing list