[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