Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

So instead of just complaining about balls bouncing out of the high goals, let's work together as a community to solve this problem for FIRST. Does anyone have any proposals for how to solve this problem? Things to consider in your answer:
- effectiveness
- ease of installation and removal during field setup and teardown
- cost
- time to implement. If it can't be implemented by week 2 competitions, it doesn't help.
- aesthetics. Should blend in with the high tech look of the field and not look like something that was duct taped on at the last minute.

OK, go...

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

just cover the openings behind the goals and above the drivers heads. a piece of polycarbonate would do.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Our team purchased some corrugated polycarbonate at Menards for use on our robot that only cost around $45.00 for a 4'x8' sheet. This is the same material used to cover greenhouses. It is clear and would look good. From the stands, you probably wouldn't even see it.

As for attaching it...zip ties on top of the pipes would work I think. Quick and cheap. The polycarbonate is only 1/4" thick so that shouldn't affect the ball going through the goal.

Cost? If the pipes are 2' apart, 3 sheets should take care of the whole field (3 half sheets per end). Total cost of around $150 per field. Seems reasonable to me.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Is it possible to incorporate a layer of energy absorbing netting/chains far enough back from goal mouth to avoid bounce-back?

I haven't been able to watch the matches so I don't know the geometry of the problem.

What is the general angle and/or velocity of shots are most likely to bounce back out? Or does it occur on a variety of shot-types?

Of course, the fix needs to avoid a new set of bounce-out problems.

(I'm surprised that this problem has reappeared after last year's tendency of frisbees sliding out in high-scoring matches. Regardless of game, counting goals that are scored should be very high on the "required" specs. for field design.)

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

What about just a ramp that's similar to the low goal ramp? It would make the ball more likely to stay in the goal

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

How about astro turf or shag carpet to absorb the energy?

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Has first even acknowledged that they see it as an issue? As far as I'm concerned, it's just something that teams should get used to.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

I agree, they gave us a huge target to put a ball through this year and I think that this is a perfect challenge for teams to have to adapt strategies to.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Teams need to shoot closer & up through the goal. Those w/ a flat shot from further away or are going through the upper goal on the flat hang or down arc are the only ones that will have the problem of bounce back through the opening.

Don't fix it. Deal w/ it teams, and alter your shooting, as week one matches are already underway.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Can we add: Leave it as is.

It's not changed since kickoff.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

I honestly don't think this is something FIRST should fix. Frisbees bounced out of the goals last year. If a ball bounces out of the goal, the team who shot it needs to adjust their shot.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Ok here is my idea for a simple quick fix. Use 1/16" thick polycarbonate cut into 4" wide x 12" long strips. Bend them at 4" on the 12 " length to 45 degrees. Now screw them(on the 4" face) to the back of the goal wall along the top of the opening so the remaining 8" is hanging down towards the goal opening. These will be very flexible when the ball hits them as it is scored yet be very durable when the ball tries to bend them backwards. These fingers could be added every 12" along the goal opening to minimize the field modification time.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

To all people saying teams should deal with it:

This isn't a case of a ball hitting the top and bouncing in the goal opening. This is the ball literally going in through the whole, bouncing on the piece protecting the drive team, and bouncing back out of the hole. I don't see how a team should just design around it, it's a field issue. The backing on the ultimate ascent goals were something to take into account, and it was obvious. The balls bouncing out of these goals is something that wasn't so obvious until week 1 events. It may have happened once or twice in week 0, but there was one match at palmetto where the ball went in and then bounced out 3 times in one match.


I'm inclined to believe just some polycarb that is tilted at a slight angle would fix this issue entirely, and shouldn't be expensive.

Tell that to CHAOS 131, whose close, high angle, "layup" shot got stuffed by the bar probably more than a dozen times at GSDE. It was really unfortunate, because they had a great machine, but lost matches due to this field feature.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Many times the ball would go through the high goal and settle resting on the bar in the rear until someone took it down. This must have been disruptive for the drivers in that station.

Also the field drawings did not reflect the bar in the back. To me this is a different challenge than what was presented and should be fixed.

I helped set up the field at GSDE and can say that the polycarbonate idea would be very easy to implement.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

It was in the original drawing of the field.

All teams have to deal with this issue, so it is fair. I suggest, instead of wasting energy complaining about it, work to figure out a way so that your robot is less affected by it.

Griping about a field element that has been in the drawings since kickoff is wasted energy IM(NS)HO.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

It's definitely a field issue, however, it is one that a lot of teams didn't notice until now. It sounds like a lot of teams missed a crucial part of the design process. Who's fault is that?

Been there since day one on the Official Field Drawings...

This isn't really a big deal. In every sporting event there are challenges. They don't stop a baseball game because it is windy, batters just try to keep the ball low to avoid the wind. Same in football, soccer, or any sport played outside...

Adjust your shot, modify your strategy, play the game you were given.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

I think it's totally fair. It's just all part of the design challenge. It probably is hard to change the trajectory of a catapult and do all the math associated with it, but that's one of the reasons why we didn't design a catapult.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

If nothing is going to be changed about the bar, then things need to change about how cycles are ended. Refs should be able to undo cycles since the ball is literally bouncing out of the goal after it appears to be scored. Maybe have another set of lights on the human barrier station so if the cycle is undone, the human players can't inbound until those lights are lit as well. As a ref, I will not want to cause a field fault due to unscoring balls, but I also want to make sure that the next cycle is started as soon as possible. Honestly, this bar seems more unfair to refs, than to the robots.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Even if the bar was deemed unfair by the GDC itself, nothing would be done about it, and it's not mainly because of money. The main problem is that in the week one events, the teams who participated had to deal with the bar. Changing that bar is not fair to them. If they had to deal with it, it's more fair that everyone else has to deal with it as well. They had to adjust and so do we, simple as that.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

I guess FIRST has never changed the field elements throughout the season before. :rolleyes:

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Why would they not change the rules? They've done it before.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

It's not a rule, it's a field element.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

FIRST has changed field elements before also... this whole discussion sounds remarkably like the discussion early in 2012 when basketballs wouldn't roll out from under the bridges.

Then, FIRST made a change to the way they attached the polycarb ball ramps to the underside of the bridge assembly (if I remember correctly).

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Also about the bar...

Even if FIRST wanted to, let's think about the logistical nightmare of getting the materials to fix the fields out to all the events. This weekend alone, there were 11 fields deployed across the U.S. and Canada, and there's certainly more fields then that. Once fields leave HQ, they don't return until the end of the season. So for a fix to happen, the materials would have to be shipped all over the place. While this could be done, I'd be willing to be HQ would try to avoid it as much as possible.

Edit: Not saying it can't be done, or hasn't been done (I do remember 2012), just making sure people are aware of the logistics of making the change happen.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

They've changed the field before too. Remember in 2012 they changed the polycarb under the bridges after balls would get stuck under them, so only certain robots could pick them up. I'm pretty sure this was between week 1 and week 2.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Honestly if it becomes a larger issue, more than refs trying to keep score and what have you, they could probably just use cardboard... I don't think it had made that big of an impact YET.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Is having to replay a match a big impact? A match in eliminations?

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Maybe instead of a metal bars it should be chain (of a sturdier variety than 2013 chain) with pool noodle around it.

Re: Propose possible fixes for high goals
 

Why would this result in a match being replayed? Currently, if the ball bounces back out it is not a goal. It is quite clear. - if a referee or other official interpreted a "bounce out" as a reason to replay a game, then they have not followed the current rule.

This bounce potential may negatively impact my team's shot - but that doesn't change the fact that it would still be more unfair to modify now than to continue to work as is...We may modify our approach and make it a non-issue, but that is why we don't register for week one events!

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?