[robocup-small] Ideas for 2007 Rules
Beng Kiat Ng
nbk at np.edu.sg
Mon Oct 16 20:39:07 EDT 2006
With deadly accurate and powerful kicker, offside is not so effective. You
can't really bring the defense line forward when the opponent can easily
scored from halfway across the field against your single goalie.
BengKiat
"Gordon Wyeth"
<wyeth at itee.uq.ed
u.au> To
Sent by: <robocup-small at cc.gatech.edu>
robocup-small-bou cc
nces at cc.gatech.ed
u Subject
Re: [robocup-small] Ideas for 2007
Rules
10/16/2006 02:17
PM
Please respond to
wyeth at itee.uq.edu
.au
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/20061017/fd716e75/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cc.gatech.edu/pipermail/robocup-small/attachments/20061017/fd716e75/attachment-0003.gif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic04734.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1255 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cc.gatech.edu/pipermail/robocup-small/attachments/20061017/fd716e75/attachment-0004.gif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ecblank.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cc.gatech.edu/pipermail/robocup-small/attachments/20061017/fd716e75/attachment-0005.gif
More information about the robocup-small
mailing list