Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Here is one for you i want to score a 2x ball for the other team and hole it there because i do not want them to unscore it is that goaltending???

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Yes, by the rules, if your robot is in contact with the ball, the ball is considered part of the robot, therefore if you're holding in place, you're goaltending.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Let me suggest that you might look at this in a different way.

If the purpose of a program is to inspire students and show them the fun and excitement of engineering and science, what good can be done if the only students you reach are the ones that were already going to be engineers and scientists? They already "get it" and are already on the right path. The ones that need to be reached (and impacted and inspired) are those that are NOT normally in this group. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that the typical high school athelete fits into that second group (yes, I know there are lots of exceptions, but go along with me for a minute).

Given that, how do you attract a typical "jock" to become part of a "geek" activity? Well, how about including something in the activity for which they are uniquely talented? They then have an opportunity to bring their skills into the activity and contribute. But at the same time, they get exposed to the skills and abilities of the rest of the "geek" team and activity. All of a sudden, a new world of opportunities may be opened for someone that never considered it before.

Wouldn't that get right to the core purpose of an organization that is trying to instill an appreciation of science and technology into those that may need it most?

Just a thought.

-dave


(/edit/ I just finished reading through the rest of the thread, and Aidan has basically said the same thing.)

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

To make an argument for arugment's sake:
What if, in doing this, you discourage the geeks, who are already sick of being 'second best' or never getting recognition or having to see the athletes always spotlighted? Would that be fair to them?

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

If that's the way someone thinks, then they have bigger issues than trying to build a robot in 6 weeks. A few things:

- Where do you see this big dichotomy between smart kids and kids who are good at sports? Is there some gaping chasm between people who enjoy sports and people who build robots and never the twain shall meet?

- FIRST also teached students to be well-rounded. Just because a person is smart does not mean they should spend all of their time indoors in front of a computer. Colleges don't want students who just sit and program all day long, or who solve differential equations in their spare time. They want students who have a wide range of interests and who can bring something new to their school. In addition to showcasing robots, FIRST makes students hang out with other students and (gasp) have a good time with other people. It forces you to make connections, to work in groups, and to present your ideas to large numbers of people. If you're going to say that FIRST is only about letting the smart kids do "geeky" things, then you need to evaluate the intent of the FIRST charter. Having a game that includes a physical aspect and maybe brings more diverse people in could be better than you think

- There is a reason sports are popular, they are fun to watch and fun to play. Maybe it would be a good idea to hold off on saying this game bites until you see it played for real.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Our main builder this year is on the V. Football team. I'm going to be finding some basketball players to 'inspire' this year. Mabey we can get them on the team, not just to shoot, but also to do work and have fun. Our team leader originally came just to hang out, but then took a leadership position and then became our human player last year.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Hahaha

Poster child for over reactions on internet fori...
 

This thread is like a characature of the internet on SNL.

Really.

"This sucks!"

"No, It doesn't"

"Does too"

"Not, what really stinks is that over there"

"I LOVE that over there and besides, THIS sucks"

and so it goes.

Seriously folks, let's calm down a bit.

This game is not perfect. These rules are not perfect. FIRST is not perfect. I am not perfect (and we all know YOU suck ;-)

Bottom line: The sky is not falling in. While not perfect, this game is pretty good. FIRST has done a pretty darn good job.

I think we should all a take a few deep breaths and get on with deciding how we are going to play this pretty darn good game.

Joe J.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

It's been a long time since I've posted! I'm in my first year of college and wish I could be part of a team. :( This forum is the closest I have, I have three years experience behind me so I feel like veteran.

First of all, why can't we just read the rules for what they are? Every year we argue and try to bend the rules to what we want. My team tried this in 2002 and tried bending the rules by reacting against the "nipple" and not the "wood". The referees REALLY kept an eye on us. If you try to bend the rules, the ref's will have their eye on you. So I say, just play the game for what it is.

Second, If a school decides to choose a basketball player to join the team just to shoot balls, that's they're porogative. Although I don't agree with letting some popular jock who get's enough attention as it is join the team just to get more attention and popularity, there is nothing we can do about it. It's the teams decision. Every team is not going to say, "We need a basketball player to shoot balls!!" If I know my former team, they will choose someone who has done a substantial amount of work and contributed to the team throughout the 6 week period. Not just some basketball player who hasn't done any work just to shoot balls. But if a basketball player is inspired to pursue science or engineering, I agree, that is what FIRST is about.

Re: Poster child for over reactions on internet fori...
 

Well, that sucks. :D

-dave

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

From the refs point of view, they do not want to make opinionated calls at competitions in order to minimize conflicts from other teams. Yes I know this does not seem like "gracious professionalism" but the refs want to make there decisions based on simple, obvious rulings, and avoid speculation.

This is probably why FIRST is strictly enforcing the Goaltending Ruling. And I can understand this ruling after being a Lego League referee for the past three years. But now this allows the human players to sway the game to there advantage, and not the robot.

Initially, many teams probably anticipated that if you cap the 2X ball in the opposing team's goal, they cannot score until they uncap the 2X ball. But with this ruling, it seems that FIRST is encouraging teams to wait towards the end of the game to cap the goals in order to avoid getting penalized. But in doing so, it is now strategic for the Human Players to hold onto two or three balls, and when an opposing team's robot tries to cap a goal (any goal for that matter) a human player can throw there last set of balls at the robot attempting to cap the 2X ball (or the goal they are trying to cap), and get the opposing team penalized for goaltending. Thus FIRST ultimately discourages teams to actually attempt to cap a 2X ball onto a goal.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

There is no penalty if they are capping their own goal, and if they were to cap an opponent's goal, it would be early, not late.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

That is true, but it does not matter if the robot caps it early or not. They will still get penalized.

FIRST defines GOALTENDING (rule 4.3.1) when "a ROBOT interferes with a SMALL ball on its downward flight toward a goal or within a goal."

Rule G20 states that "ROBOTS cannot GOALTEND either the Mobile or Stationary Goals. If a ROBOT GOALTENDs or DESCORES any SMALL ball, the referee will throw a green penalty flag and the opponent's final score will be increased by twice the value of that SMALL ball."

The following rule (G21) mentions that, "a ROBOT holding a LARGE Ball, that ball will be considered an extension of the ROBOT."

So if I read this correctly, if a robot attempts to cap a 2X ball into a goal, and a small ball (thrown by a human player) hits the robot or the goal during this process. The team attempting to cap the 2X ball will get penalized for GOALTENDING.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

only if the robot is holding it down

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

The robot only has to be holding the 2X ball to get penalized for goaltending.