Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Well, I think the goaltending rule is bad but I think its only fair because how are to get to the next competion if you don't allow the other team to score. Also, one important thing is if you allow the other team to score alot on you but yet still win, you will have a higher chance to go to the national finals.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

I've given this a lot of thought in terms of strategy, If your alliance has bots that can handle the 2x ball well and the other alliance doesn't, in a seeding match, it would be to everybodys advantage to 2x a opposing teams goal late in the game, to keep the losing teams score close to yours. There is much talk about the "Goaltending" in terms of points, it is only on a per ball bais. So if the other alliance gets two balls off while you are helping them at the end it would be 10 points per ball. This might or might not be a big issue. If you alliance was running with full goals and already capped. Seeding better may be worth the "risk." That's just my 2cents.

its not that hard...
 

First, I'm 5'7" and not a basketball player. On my first day of trying (with about 10 shots of practice) I was able to make 7/10 shooting basketball style. I was also able to shoot well by playing as if I was spiking a volleyball. My point in all this is that I really dont think that teams need to go out and recruit basketball players just to shoot.

As far as the goaltending rule goes, FIRST makes the rules and we have to play by them. I think that the intent of the rule was to prevent teams from preventing other teams HP's from making their shots, which makes sense to me.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

I personally feel that the goaltending ruling should be based on whether the intent of the robot is to purposely cover the goals, or just to try and cap them. But the problem for refs determining the team's intention is that this ruling will eventually be opinion based observation. So the ref's decision on intent can be viewed as a bit skeptical, to which I could see teams arguing over certain calls the refs have made. Unfortunate as this may sound, I feel that it is best for the refs to consider capping goals (while human players try to score) with the 2X balls as goaltending just to be safe.

Even if a team's human player tries to penalize another team's robot for attempting to cap the 2X ball by throwing balls at that same goal and/or the robot attempting the capping, it is not at the best interest for the human player's team because they do not accomplish much. And even if they did penalize the other team, it is not an honest nor effective way of winning.

Goaltending will be oftenly ruled during matches; or at least argued. Critisize the rules (goaltending... cough, cough) all you want, but I do not feel it will persuade FIRST to change them. So I guess everybody has to suck it up, and deal with it. ;)

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Rule<G21> is really nutty in my humble opinion. But I have to agree with what someone earlier said. extend the height board in front of the opposing human player. Just instead make it clear so they can still see. Also you people take this way too seriously. :]

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

I think that FIRST's reason for the goaltending rule is simple. They want us to build robots that actually DO something, rather than just simply stop another from doing something.

Take Stack Attack for example. Watching a robot ram a stacker was boring. Seeing a robot make a stack of 8 bins all on it's own, now that was cool.

I think FIRST was disappointed last year with the game not turning out how they wanted it to. It was inteded to be a big highlight of stacking and KOTH, but just turned into a pushing/ ram the stacker game. With FIRST Frenzy, they made sure that this year, the bots will do something besides just stop the other bots from doing something cool.

By the way, there is plenty of defensive strategies in this game.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

i dont really agree with you
beyond capping an opponents goal early, or sitting in front of their corral, you cant defend

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

So what's the point of having rules if we aren't allowed to interpret them and take them to the edge of legality in order to employ the best possible advantage? Without clear-cut definitions, it's up to the judges' and refs' discretion, which screams bias.

I wouldn't call it "exploiting" freedoms - I'd call it maximizing advantage, and making sure what the limit is that teams can do.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Ben, here is the point: FIRST is not about going to the edge of legality. It is about pushing the limits of our minds to find creative solutions that are clearly within the guidelines - not challenging those guidelines. FIRST is an extraordinary community where we all compete for the sole purpose of inspiring each other. FIRST is about the old-school ideals of tough competitive sportsmanship; not the new-school ideal of beat-them-by-tricking-them. To save lots more typing, the simplest way to say it is that FIRST is about Gracious Professionalism. Anyone who doesn't understand that term yet should ask others and try to learn what it means -- in our society it is not an obvious concept to many, which is ok, we are all continually learning what it means. However, it is worth discovering its meaning -- it is the pillar of FIRST.

Now, I think you must have missed a big part of this year's message. By design, the rules are more simple than they have been in the past. It has been stated that the desire is for people to follow the intent of rules by using common sense. By design, every last loophole to that intent is not addressed, and will not be. By design, the decisions on legality will be left to the inspectors and referees at the competition. They are intelligent, respected volunteers who will themselves practice Gracious Professionalism in making their decisions as to whether teams have built and/or play to the intent of the rules. And their decisions will be final.

I take issue with your statement that this methodology "screams bias". To me, it doesn't even hint of bias. My recommendation is that if a team finds themselves in an area where they are questioning how their design/strategy will be ruled on by the inspectors/refs, then they should move the design far enough away from that line of uncertainty to make the risk of "interpretation" go away. To me, that seems like the smart way to play it.

Sorry for being long-winded; hope it helped.

:)

Aidan

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Keep in mind that goaltending does NOT result in loss of points for the team that is doing the goaltending. I'll leave it to you to find out what really happens. :cool:

There is little to no defense in the structure of this year's game. That was intentional. It's 2 robots vs 2 robots, competing to score more points than their opponents. If you prevent your opponents from scoring, not only are you lowering your own score (you could be using that time to put points on the board) but you are probably lowering thier score as well. Even if you win the match, you're QP's are going to suffer because of your strategy.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Your opponents score has always been important in recent years. This year it might be a bit more important. But if you can find a defensive strategy that can win every match (and believe me, there are), you can still play a defensive game and be successful. I think people are overemphasizing the point-system. My opinion might be skewed, however, coming from a generally defensive team.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

not necessarily.. say you are crushing another alliance, you could goal tend to raise their score intentionally to raise your QP's

though i agree you cannot base a stategy around defense

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Hang on the bar, extend some wings (or something else) to block others from getting hooking onto the bar

Move your opponents mobile goal to your side of the field so they only have 1 goal they can get balls into

defend the platforms so robots can't get to the bar

stop your opponent's bot that is holding a 2X ball from successfully getting it on their goal

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

I disagree entirely.
I think you should re-read the qualification process.

If I crush every opponent who comes against me, win every match 200 - 0, and finish the day with 8 wins and 0 losses... I will seed 1st (or close to it) at the regional, even though I have ZERO "loser points".

I'm scared because it seems that there are still people out there who do not understand this.

Winning a match is worth 2 points.
Tieing in a match is worth 1 point.
Losing a match is worth 0 points.

At the end of the qualification matches... if 2 or more teams are tied, THEN the "losers points" are taken into consideration.

If I go 8-0, and no one else does... I seed 1st.

John

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

I think basing your strategy around defense is entirely possible. Some of the best robots I've seen have been purely defensive.