Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

In 2012, they changed the field elements because balls were getting stuck under bridges. That change was made after week 1 events. You could've told teams to design around it then, but FIRST fixed the field. FIRST also added chains in the goals after week 0 in 2013. The field is not some divine, fixed entity. It can change, and should be changed.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

I think Bochek has it. It meets all of ToddF's criterion.

I'm willing to wager that if this happened to your team, you'd be the first one to call foul. It's easy to hold such a potentially hypocritical position when you have yet to play a match.

===

Ultimately, it'll come down to the intent of the rails and how FIRST had intended for the goals to perform.

As per the rules (3.1.4.A), FIRST has no obligation to fix this. They are fine by how the rule is defined and how the field was built.

However, currently, it seems that the rail is there to protect drivers, and not to kick the ball back out. If this is correct, and FIRST wants to keep it that way, they ought to implement a change.

- Sunny G.

3.1.4.A - A BALL is considered SCORED in an ALLIANCE’S GOAL if a ROBOT causes one (1) of their ALLIANCE’S BALLS to cross completely and remain completely through the opening(s) of one (1) of their ALLIANCE’S GOALS without intervening TEAM member contact

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Why?

What about it isn't what was provided when the game was released? In 2013 adding the cord to tie the chains together was done, but was it needed? In 2012 the polycarbonate was changed, but was it needed? In both cases I'd say no, but lots of teams would argue. In 2012, if a ball went under the bridge all you had to do was drop the opposite side. In 2013, if your disc bounced out you could not throw the thing as fast as physically possible. I don't understand why teams are upset about this. It seems to me that everyone is a little grumpy because they spent six weeks on a project and it doesn't work as well as they wanted it to. But, the same problem happens in real life too...

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Intent. Intent. Intent.

In all of those scenarios, FIRST intended those pieces to perform differently than they actually did. FIRST recognized that and changed the game piece to help with game play.

As far as whether or not it should be changed, once again, it depends on whether or not FIRST had intended for that bottom bar to serve as something that'll kick balls back onto the field.

- Sunny G.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Emphasis mine.

This is where the problem lies. One of the largest complaints this weekend has been the fact that cycles are not started fast enough once a ball is scored. This puts pressure on the referee crew to score a ball as fast as possible. But because the bar at the back of the goal is causing issues, and referees cannot un-score a ball once it is scored in the system, they are forced to wait several seconds after a ball is officially scored to start the next cycle to make sure it doesn't come back out. If they count the ball as scored and then it comes back out, it is a field fault and the match must be replayed.

But on the other hand, if they wait too long to score the ball, teams get frustrated because the referees are slowing down the match.

The referees have a tremendous amount of responsibility this year, more than usual, and I believe FIRST should be doing everything they can to help them and make their job a little easier.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

The 2012 fix was as simple at mounting the plastic already under the bridge upside-down to increase the angle. Is there a fix for this year that doesn't require any additional equipment to fields that are already deployed?