<div>Hi, all</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think , this is time to increase field size and implement offside rule.</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Offside rule with larger field will effect to more game strategy and make the league more interesting.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Nawarat , Plasma-Z<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/16/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Gordon Wyeth</b> <<a href="mailto:wyeth@itee.uq.edu.au">wyeth@itee.uq.edu.au</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>Offside might introduce some interesting defence strategies as well. It is not<br>so attractive to form a wall across the goal if that also allows the attackers
<br>into your half of the field. Offside could be a very interesting development for<br>small size, and the league seems mature enough to handle it now.<br><br>Gordon Wyeth<br>(ex-RoboRoos and former Small-Size chair)<br>
<br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: <a href="mailto:robocup-small-bounces@cc.gatech.edu">robocup-small-bounces@cc.gatech.edu</a><br>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:robocup-small-bounces@cc.gatech.edu">robocup-small-bounces@cc.gatech.edu
</a>] On Behalf Of Sheng Yu<br>> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2006 3:30 PM<br>> To: <a href="mailto:robocup-small@cc.gatech.edu">robocup-small@cc.gatech.edu</a><br>> Subject: Re: [robocup-small] Ideas for 2007 Rules<br>
><br>> I am a former developer in ZjuNlict.<br>><br>> For the problem of too powerful corner kicks, offside might be<br>> nice choice to prevent it. So why not introduce offside to our<br>> small-size league?
<br>><br>> As the increasing of the field, offside might be a very common<br>> phenomenon.Therefore, most teams now set one or two players<br>> just staying near the forbidden area even when they score less than
<br>> the opponent because there is no offside rule in our game. If we have<br>> offside rule, the team might be able to put more players to offense.<br>><br>> It is also a teachnical challenge for all teams to handle the
<br>> offside well.<br>><br>> Yu Sheng<br>><br>><br>> >From: James Bruce <<a href="mailto:bruce@andrew.cmu.edu">bruce@andrew.cmu.edu</a>><br>> >To: <a href="mailto:robocup-small@cc.gatech.edu">
robocup-small@cc.gatech.edu</a><br>> >CC: <a href="mailto:small-size-tc@tzi.de">small-size-tc@tzi.de</a><br>> >Subject: [robocup-small] Ideas for 2007 Rules<br>> >Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:27:31 +0800<br>
> ><br>> >Hi everyone,<br>> ><br>> >The following are my *personal* thoughts on the rules changes I think<br>> >might be useful for the league. I'm not speaking in any official way<br>> >at this point, merely putting out these ideas for discussion. In a
<br>> >few weeks the TC will take the public discussion to form concrete<br>> >rules proposals. Please post any rules changes you would<br>> like to see,<br>> >as now is the time to have them heard and discussed.
<br>> ><br>> >Jim Bruce<br>> ><br>> >================================<br>> ><br>> >- Move to a partially automatic ethernet-based referee box<br>> ><br>> > I liked the demonstration by Plasma-Z on semi-automated
<br>> refereeing.<br>> > To make such a system practical, we would need to move to an<br>> > ethernet-based referee box. This has some other<br>> advantages: (1) no<br>> > more need for split-serial cables, and finding long
<br>> ethernet cables<br>> > is much easier. (2) it makes it easier to verify teams<br>> are connected<br>> > to the referee using a "heartbeat" message. (3) it is<br>> much easier to<br>
> > find computers with two ethernet ports now compared to an extra<br>> > serial port. (4) if the long term plan is to move to a<br>> shared vision<br>> > system, we will need to develop a shared ethernet-based
<br>> > communications system anyway.<br>> ><br>> > The challenge, of course, is transitioning to a new system, and<br>> > helping teams to correctly set up separate ethernet networks on<br>
> > their computers (we do not want one shared system, as it opens up<br>> > all sorts of problems with communication interference).<br>> ><br>> > We could try to develop an ethernet+serial referee box during the
<br>> > transition period. I would be willing to help out in<br>> that effort.<br>> ><br>> >- Decrease timeout time to 5 minutes<br>> ><br>> > Motivation: keep the games moving, and get them back
<br>> under an hour.<br>> > Teams need to be ready for games.<br>> ><br>> >- Are chip kicks now too powerful for the goalie?<br>> ><br>> > Proposal: allow a second defender to enter the defense area for a
<br>> > limited time (3 seconds perhaps?)<br>> > Alternate Proposal: split the defense area into a small "no two<br>> > defenders" area, and a larger "no goalie touching" area.
<br>> This will<br>> > allow defenses a better chance of blocking while still preventing<br>> > walls across the entire goal.<br>> ><br>> > Motivation: In the China open last week, for the first time two
<br>> > teams capable of "header" shots met each other (CMDragons,<br>> > ZJUNlict). After some early games adjusting things, we ended up<br>> > doing a TV demo that resulted in a 4-3 score after less than 8
<br>> > minutes of play. That projects out to a 16-12 or 16-15<br>> score at the<br>> > end of the game, which is probably a little too high.<br>> ><br>> > On the other hand, maybe corner kicks *should* be dangerous, just
<br>> > like in real soccer. If a team can complete too high a<br>> percentage<br>> > of corner kicks however, this can become a problem.<br>> ><br>> >- Teams must prove kickers are legal
<br>> ><br>> > Right now, there are a lot of chip kicker designs, including<br>> > short-travel wedges (the FU-Fighters 2005 design), wedges that<br>> > travel near the robot, and "scoops" that sweep outward from the
<br>> > robot. Some are easy to prove legal, such as the short travel<br>> > wedge, since the ball cannot ever violate the 20% rule throughout<br>> > the travel. Scoop kickers are a bit more problematic,
<br>> as legality<br>> > depends on the dynamics. The ball *could* become<br>> illegal, but its<br>> > unclear if it *does*. At the last competition the rules<br>> committee<br>> > ended up having to show kickers were illegal, when
<br>> really the burden<br>> > should be on the teams.<br>> ><br>> >- General kick speed limitation?<br>> > Maybe we should limit kicks to some reasonable upper<br>> limit, such as<br>> > 10 m/s (CMDragons was using 15 m/s for the last three
<br>> games). What<br>> > is needed however is some way of enforcing this. I<br>> don't have any<br>> > good ideas on this, but maybe someone else does.<br>> ><br>> >- Increase team size to 6 robots
<br>> > I think this might be the year to increase the number of<br>> robots, to<br>> > add more possibilities for passing, and to get closer to<br>> 11-vs-11 in<br>> > a manageable way. Teams are scoring now, so we don't have the
<br>> > situation of a few years ago with many 0-0 or 1-0 games.<br>> However,<br>> > in order to prevent teams from stacking to defense too much, we<br>> > could *require* that at least one robot stay as a forward at all
<br>> > times (i.e. a team must keep one robot on the offense side of the<br>> > field at all times). This is kind of a reverse-offsides rule.<br>> ><br>> >- small field size increase (outer size unchanged)
<br>> ><br>> > With kicks now given 100mm from the border, the outer<br>> 300mm border<br>> > is not really necessary. Thus, without any changes to vision<br>> > systems, we could decrease the outer border to 200mm on
<br>> each side,<br>> > enlarging the field by 200mm in both dimensions. In our lab, we<br>> > would not have enough space for this change, and this is probably<br>> > the case for many teams. However, the size difference is not so
<br>> > large, so teams should be able to verify easily that<br>> they can play<br>> > on such a field.<br>> ><br>> >- No travel support for teams that have not participated in a local<br>
> > RoboCup competition or a RoboCup international competition within<br>> > the last two years. (or maybe, no admittance, with the exception<br>> > that some local teams may be allowed to compete).
<br>> ><br>> > Motivation: we still have a problem with teams that come to the<br>> > competition but do not play, even with the "banned for two years"<br>> > stipulation currently in the rules. I'm interesting in
<br>> hearing what<br>> > people think about this issue, or if they have other<br>> approaches to<br>> > the addressing the problem.<br>> >_______________________________________________<br>> >robocup-small mailing list
<br>> ><a href="mailto:robocup-small@cc.gatech.edu">robocup-small@cc.gatech.edu</a><br>> ><a href="https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small">https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small
</a><br>><br>><br>><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>robocup-small mailing list<br><a href="mailto:robocup-small@cc.gatech.edu">robocup-small@cc.gatech.edu</a><br><a href="https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small">
https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-small</a><br></blockquote></div><br>