[robocup-small] Ideas for 2007 Rules

Mon Oct 16 02:54:50 EDT 2006

Hi, all

I think , this is time to increase field size and implement offside rule.
But offside rule may be hard to see it by eyes. Small-Size league is much
more faster than people league. So I think to implement this rule we have to
get help from semi-auto or autonomous referee.

Offside rule with larger field will effect to more game strategy and make
the league more interesting.

Nawarat , Plasma-Z

On 10/16/06, Gordon Wyeth <wyeth at itee.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> robocup-small mailing list
> robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu
> https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cc.gatech.edu/pipermail/robocup-small/attachments/20061016/26e1ae10/attachment-0001.html 