[robocup-small] Major rules proposals for 2007

khaller at MIT.EDU khaller at MIT.EDU
Sun Feb 4 16:44:48 EST 2007


Some opinions from RFC Cambridge (sorry it took so long to respond, but we are
new at this and wanted to really think about the issues before forming an
opinion):

>
> --------------------------------
>   PROPOSED MAJOR RULES CHANGES
> --------------------------------
>
> ==== FIELD SIZE ====
>
> Proposal: Increase field size slightly for 2007.  The outer dimensions
> of the field remain the same, but the inner dimensions are increased
> by 200mm in both directions.  This is achieved by shrinking the
> "margin" outside the area of play from 300mm to 200mm.
>
> TC: The TC is evenly split on this issue, so we would like to hear
> from teams as to how they feel about this change.
>
> Note: Although the outer field dimensions will remain unchanged this
> year, this current TC is considering a major field size increase for
> 2008 and beyond.  Thus, teams should design their systems with this in
> mind.  Because it takes teams time to adapt to field size increases,
> we are working on a multi-year roadmap which will be provided to guide
> future TCs.  Like the mid-size league (as well as FIFA), the field
> size in the future is likely to be provided as a range, rather than
> the current fixed dimensions.
>
> We dont have a problem with changing the field size, although we 
> realize many schools and teams (including ourselves) do not have 
> large amounts of work space, so please take that into consideration. 
> Also, if the inner margins are enlarged, will there still be enough 
> room for corner kicks and for the robots to get "behind" the ball if 
> it goes out of bounds?

> ==== SEMI-AUTOMATIC REFEREE ====
>
> This year we will be adopting an ethernet-based referee, which allows
> teams a measure of self-refereeing.  It is based on the concept
> demonstrated at last year's RoboCup by Plasma-Z.  Participation this
> year will be voluntary, but strongly encouraged.  The referee program
> will still have a serial output like the old referee program, but that
> interface may not have the full functionality of the new ethernet
> interface.
>
> Note: Teams are encouraged to consider computer hardware with an
> additional ethernet interface, as the referee will be on a special
> local network to avoid interference.
>
> We prefer ethernet ports since none of our computers actually have 
> serial ports and we have to make converters. If other teams purchase 
> new computers they will most likely encounter this problem as well. 
> If the switch is made, please make the code available as soon.


> ==== ROBOT KICK SPEED LIMITATION ====
>
> Proposal: Limit the maximum speed a ball can be kicked, to something
> like 10m/s.
>
> TC: We would like to adopt this rule, both for safety reasons and to
> avoid an arms race.  However, we would like feedback from teams about
> whether they feel this is important, and if so, which speed limit to
> use.  To keep it concrete, please consider only 2 m/s increments
> between 6 m/s and 12 m/s, or "no limit".
>
> Penalty: Goals scored or deflections off of opponents using kicks
> above the limit will result in a freekick for the other team.
> Enforcement would mainly be by team cooperation, along with a static
> measurement at the beginning of the competition.  During a match, a
> referee will have to use his judgement, along with evidence from any
> participating automatic referees.
>
> We think limiting the kicker speed will put more emphasis on strategy 
> and make for a better match. Limitations of kick speed will also 
> reduce the number of "injuries" to robots (and goals). We think a 
> means of measurement will be the most difficult.

> ==== ROBOT KICKER SAFETY ====
>
> Proposal: Limit maximum voltage of energy storage for kickers.
> Kicking devices are also not allowed to use explosive chemical
> reactions to power their kick.
>
> TC: This is another safety issue, and we would like teams to give
> their feedback as this as safety is a community issue.  The limits we
> will consider are 100V, 150V, 200V, and 250V, or "no limit".  The TC
> has a slight preference for 200V as this allows many teams from last
> year to run unmodified, and is not above the household AC current in
> most countries.
>
> We feel that safety should come from the teams and their schools 
> rather than the technical committee. Kickers should have a discharge 
> mechanism (a switch or button, etc). If this is to be limited we feel 
> it should be done by either limiting speed or by limiting energy. I 
> suppose its only fair to let you know our kicker runs on 450V.

> ==== NEW GOALS ====
>
> The TC (and OC) is exploring the option of redesigning the goals to
> better absorb ball impacts and avoid high speed rebounds.  This could
> take the form of foam or even changing the back to a net.
>
> The TC would like to hear from teams on this issue, in particular if a
> change from the current solid color painted goals would negatively
> affect a team.  The change to the goals is being considered due to
> high-speed kickers as well as the lack of current teams using local
> vision sensing.
>
> We have no problem with a goal change.

> ==== BALL ====
>
> The current ball will not be changed for this year, but the TC is
> strongly considering different balls for 2008 and beyond.
>
> Please make sure whatever ball is chosen is widely available (worldwide).

> ==== STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF BALL HOLDING RULES ====
>
> This is not a rule change as much as a statement of future enforcement
> policy.  Last year, robots were checked for rules compliance before
> the competition, and many teams failed tests for overall dimensions
> and ball holding.  Teams should expect this again for 2007, and are
> encouraged to resolve issues before coming to the competition.
>
> While some rules are easy to check, the "20% ball holding" limit can
> be difficult to evaluate, in particular with scoop-style chip kickers.
> While a few teams were allowed to compete in 2006 with possibly
> questionable chip kicking mechanisms, for this year we note that it is
> the TEAM'S RESPONSIBILITY to provide evidence of conformance.  This
> can take the form of demonstrating it is statically legal in all
> configurations (by far the easiest route), by measurements and
> equations demonstrating mathematical conformance, by high speed camera
> evidence, or other physical demonstrations of conformance.  Teams with
> questions about conformance are encouraged to send email to the TC.
>
> We are all for enforcement


[Hopefully] See you all in Atlanta!

Kristina Haller
RFC Cambridge



More information about the robocup-small mailing list