Originally Posted by Nirvash (Post 1363552)

And as to people having an issue with this match, nowhere in the rules does it say that you must play with a certain strategy, if anything all the teams did was just Assist each other and have fun.

Originally Posted by falconmaster

It wasn't the money, it was the challenge!

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1363560)

Something doesn't match here.

Originally Posted by MrForbes (Post 1363568)

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

Originally Posted by MrForbes (Post 1363568)

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

Originally Posted by MrForbes (Post 1363568)

I see all these people complaining about the FIRST game having perverse penalties for playing defense...then we play without defense, and still people complain.

I give up.

Originally Posted by seg9585 (Post 1363566)

Never said it was against the rules. I'm just thinking about external impressions. I compare FRC to a major sporting event. What if the primary sponsor of the NFL told all the players in the Superbowl they would get a financial incentive if both teams scored at least 10 touchdowns?

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1363565)

And what was so wrong as to achieve the challenge set forth by FIRST that it had to be modified by a sponsor?

Originally Posted by nixiebunny (Post 1363578)

The match in question was the last match of an event with 100 matches played. Your comparison to a sporting event would actually be the equivalent of the two teams making ONE PLAY without defense.

Originally Posted by seg9585 (Post 1363566)

Never said it was against the rules. I'm just thinking about external impressions. I compare FRC to a major sporting event. What if the primary sponsor of the NFL told all the players in the Superbowl they would get a financial incentive if both teams scored at least 10 touchdowns? Both teams agree and play no defense. No rules were broken but I guarantee you there will be very angry football fans, especially the ones who paid $1500/ticket to see it.

My response to your first part: We are not paid athletes and the audience was not upset, on the contrary they got more excited. Plus there was no admission fee. Your analogy is not accurate. The money was not there to get us to give up competing, just the method of competing under the GP umbrella. Steve Sanghi is on the board of directors of FIRST.


In this case, I challenge your team to see how high you can get your scores via penalties. Have your human player run out onto the field. Let a drive coach take up the controls. I wonder how many G40 violations the refs would call if the rule was violated for the entire match duration. I won't give you any money for this activity, but it would be fun to see what point value the FMS is designed to max out at, huh?

Originally Posted by s_forbes (Post 1363579)

I need some clarification... what exactly was FIRST's challenge?

It seems to me that the collaboration between the alliances in the finals to set a high score was a very "GP" performance, even neglecting the achievement goal set forth by one of our regionals primary sponsors.

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1363583)

Would you consider this "GP" if this was performed during quals to get as many assist points as possible?

Originally Posted by s_forbes (Post 1363584)

Yes.

Originally Posted by s_forbes (Post 1363579)

I need some clarification... what exactly was FIRST's challenge?

It seems to me that the collaboration between the alliances in the finals to set a high score was a very "GP" performance, even neglecting the achievement goal set forth by one of our regionals primary sponsors.

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1363586)

All I can say to that is wow.