Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

OK- I'm not a lawyer- lawyer bad!

But what the heck is the problem with goal tending?

The rule states: you cannot impede the downward fall of a thrown ball with any part of a robot or a big ball held by a robot.

First Consider this- to stop an opponent you want to jam a big ball into their goal before they get a chance to fill it. While in the process of doing so they start throwing balls and some hit your machine- you get a big penalty for goal tending


Now consider this- you want to cap your own goal to double your points but the other team wants to maximize their score by adding to your goal. Your capping attempt deflects their balls. I say it should be the same penalty.


In other words-Therefore- any thrown ball hitting a robot while placing a big ball or in front of the opening of a goal could be called goal tending.A smart human player with a decent aim should hold a ball or two aside until the other team goes to cap and then throw them at the big ball while the capping is going on- to lower the opponents score by penalizing goal tending.

Realistically- I doubt any two referees in the whole system will call this or any goal tending the same way (recall the issue of robots bearing grating interactive struts last year). Therefore the issue is going to be a hot one.

This game is really poor in terms of a defensive strategy. In essence, if you have a decent basketball player there really isn't any way to stop him/her once the balls get off the field. You can block the opponents ball chute but that makes the game pretty boring. Since it is in the corner if they tried to push you out chances are they would be pinning and forced to back off periodically. So this is a basketball shootoff with robots as ball boys.

I say if a team wants to goal tend- let them.

WC :cool:

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

We went over this at the San Jose kickoff. There is a difference between putting a big sheet of aluminium over the top of the goal and holding it there, or holding the ball over the goal, and just putting the ball on the goal and then going off to do something else. It's all intent. Remember 95% of the rules are written for the 3% who try to break them. FIRST is just saying, "don't be a jerk". Most refs probably won't call it if the capping looks legit, but if they see you doing it repeditly, or holding the ball there so the other team cannot take it off, you will probably be penalized.

-Kesich

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

If memory serves, that's illegal, too. But, yes, this game is very, very poor for teams that normally use defensive strategies. ::cough::

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

goaltending is for on the way down. If you wanted, put an 8 or 9 foot arm on the bot, a big sheet of aluminum, and just raise it up over the human players, give em another 2-3feet to shoot over and impair ther vision. And it is all legal because the ball is still on its way up and the hand would still be in the arena. But, as Dean said, that would kinda be pulling a lawyerism and "interpreting" the rules to exploit the freedoms given to you.

-Kesich

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

I'm also not sure if they intended this rule to make a robot-held backboard illegal. Technically, if you latch onto a goal with a backboard-like device, that would mean you "impede the downward fall of a thrown ball with any part of a robot or a big ball held by a robot." Yet, their choice of word, goaltending, seems to imply the spirit of the rule was to stop people from covering the goal. Seems to me like the spirit of the rule should allow for a backboard, but the wording makes it illegal.

On the otherhand, a backboard can be a backboard in one orientation and a blocking mechanism in another depending on which goal you have...

Any thoughts on this?

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

there are no 'asists' wich means that you cant be a backboard, and i would bet there is somthing along the same lins that sais you cant impar the vision of the human player

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Hey wait! Are you sure that's illiagal? (to block the ball chutes?)

Good Luck
-Andy

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Chack the manual, in section 4. it says something along the lines of 'No device may be used to assist the human players in shooting the balls into the goals.' I.e. No funnels, backboards, or the like.

-Kesich

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

yah, that was one thought our team had, but we got the manuall and looked it up during lunch after the kick-off, it is defnetly there

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Wow, 3 posts at once. anyways, it would not be impairing the vision, it would be making them give more arc to thier shot which as any player knows, excessive arc makes a shot hard, especially if you are hitting a goal below what you have to shoot over (wall=8ft, goal=6ft, wall plus board=10ft?)

-Kesich

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

If a thrown ball hits your robot on the way down, but was not meant intensionally, then it is not known as goaltending. If your robot is trying to block the ball from landing in the opponent's goal on the way down, then that is considered goaltending.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

I'm going to make this short and sweet. The whole point of no goal tending is, the fact that unless robots could put in the small balls, the only possible scores are 50, and 100 points thus they have to protect the human players ability to shoot. Next, without a doubt they would penalize you for holding the ball even the first time for the simple fact of rules <G20> ROBOTS cannot GOALTEND either the mobile or stationary Goals. and <G21> While a ROBOT is holding a LARGE Ball, that ball will be considered an extension of the robot. The only way to get around that rule is to have the robots arms not be touching the ball or your'e screwed. It's plain and simple as that.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Here is a question, is it considered "goaltending" if you move your opponets goal around whlie or before they start shooting?

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

That's all good than it's all based on the accuracy of your shooter. Goaltending is the BLOCKING not the process of making the shots more difficult.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

yes, you can move the goal around. I still say the judges will be lienent on this subject and take it case by case. Capping and being hit is one thing, holding the ball there to block shots is another. If this were true, when you cap your own goals, a good shooter could chuck a ball at your goal, hit the big, yellow ball, call it goaltending, ang cut your score in half. Remember, this year, a lot of the manual, as Dean said, is common sense. Dont' abuse it or we'll get legal documents next year.

-Kesich

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

I remember hearing something about it being illegal. But I could be wrong, by all means. I'll start a more direct thread to get a quick answer..

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Not at all. The rules explicitly say that goaltending is only when the ball is on it's way down. If they didn't want any interference, they would have said that.

I didn't see anything in the rule book about not being able to block the ball corral.

Not acting lawyerly is going to come back and bite FIRST in the butt, mark my words.

--Petey

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Unfortunately one person's common sense is very different from another's and the game is supposed to be about originality. It is nice to be warm and fuzzy about this and believe that the right decisions will be made but if that is the case why have any rules at all.

Case by case means that at one site anything goes and at another every tiny infraction is enforced. I recall big issues in 2001 about tethers that varied from outright violations of rules to "well they made it so let them use it". It reared again in 2003 with hooks on the gratings.

There is no reason why goaltending shouldn't be allowed- pit human vs machine. Otherwise this becomes a basketball game where the robots are incidental. I've already been instructed by team advisors to find a basketball player to be the human player. My God- this sounds like the antithesis of FIRST is supposed to be! Bring in the athlete to show that a good athlete is the only way you can be successful in a robot competition!

In a basketball game there is defense. If every time a player received a ball everyone cleared the basket to give him a clear shot I doubt basketball would be exciting.

I am waiting for the ruling that robots can't block the feeder chutes and that would pretty much end all defense.

Personally I am quite disappointed in this restriction in the rules. It may be unpopular to say but I think the rules need to be changed and defense of the goals allowed.


WC :(

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Wayne,

I do not think this rule should be changed, maybe we should accept the game for what it is, and play it.... How boring would this game be when your team builds a big backboard, and blocks all shots by the human player..... i'd hate to watch that match, it'd be almost as boring as watching the history channel....

Take the game, with all the rules that are in the manual, and play it... the kind folks at FIRST have put way more thought in this game than most people realize.

Good luck

Tom Schindler

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

I think games should be able to be played both offensively and defensively in an effective manner. Such isn't the case with FIRST Frenzy.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

You know, IMHO, the idea of goaltending will be based on what is happening around the robot. Are they just placing the ball on top for points? Or are they using the ball as a swat? Or even more worrysome, if they make it illegal to place the ball on top with balls coming down, can you move the goal before the points get inside?

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

If you really wanted to prevent your opponent from scoring, just have your human player throw the balls to knock their shots off course. totally legal, and if you can do that, your opopnents will be grateful you're not scoring for your own team.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

I have some difficulty with your statement.

What if... you go and find a basketball player, and he/she agreed to join your team, and then he/she got Inspired and Recognized that Science and Technology was something that really interested them and got them excited....

Sounds to me to be what FIRST is all about.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

I see tons of defense in this game, knocking the large balls off, blocking robots from the bar, removing bots from the bar?... stopping the other alliance from getting the balls into their human player station.... this game has a lot more aspects of it than last year, or the year before.

Play it like it is, we all have the same rules, so lets all have a good time...

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Don't be so glum!

This isn't about bring the 6'7" school jock on your team, as wonderful as that would be, it's about honing the skills of the wide and varied members of your team. You can train someone to throw a little ball into a big basket. it would be fun for them, and a much deeper thrill for your team of the shortstuff mechanic or minuscule CAD man is pounding balls into the goals. Also, winning is important, and one of the objects of the game; but teaching kids new skills is paramount too.

Let them toss balls. :) They'll surprize you.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

sounds good Aidan- you know we will play whatever comes up. It would be great to bring basketball players into robotics and such- no argument there.

But wouldn't it be more of a spectacle if robots were to do what the humans are assigned. This IS a robot competition. By restricting the ability of the robots to defend their goals a chunk of that competition is eliminated. I still think we are missing the boat here.

WC

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Im not an expert on basket ball, but doesnt the same rule apply there?

you are not allowed to block balls from going in the hoop, once they are on the way down, but you CAN block a shooter

if you could goal tend in basket ball - place your tallest player by the backboard, and have him swat away every shot, basketball would be dead in a month

scores would drop to the single digits

good heavens - it would be almost as boring as hockey!

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Have you guys actually tried throwing balls into those goals, it really looks pretty easy to me, you have a huge backboard, and a big hoop. Plus it's hardly like shooting from half court. what about wheeling the little goal up to the plexiglass, and just plopping them over the top? I hardly think this is a challenge reserved for basketball players. The woman shooting balls into the stationary goal during the kickoff demonstration practically had a 95% success rate- practice makes perfect. Just build a goal, assign a human player, and get him/her to practice 24-7.

One of the problems with past games, is that many robots relied on their ability to hinder another team's efforts, for example, ramming a robot who is trying to stack, having a tug of war over a goal. a perfect example would be a ramp-blocking robot from last year. I think the goaltending rule is designed to allow the robots/humanplayers to "do their thing" and show their abilities so to speak. I don't really know why you would want to block their goal, because don't you want to have the closest score possible? As far as goal tending by placing a ball on a goal, wouldn't that be undesireable, because it would just increase their score?

I myself could care less about goaltending, as far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't have much affect on the outcome. As for the interperetations of the rules- What is your intent? is it to block balls from entering the goal? if yes, then NO it is not allowed! Just think- what are you trying to accomplish? Is it in the spirit of the game? :eek:

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

There are other ways to stop the balls from going in other than manually blocking them.

...

you could cap their goals early

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

But in basketball, you can still block on the way up, just like you can in this game. A little trivia fact, but the reason golatending was implimented is quite interesting. It was in order to hinder Wilt Chamberland. The rule was born after a game where Wilt jumped and grabbed a ball out of air when it was somewhere between 13 and 14 feet up. The NBA then decided to hinder Wilt, because it didnt work for superstars at the time like it does now (i.e. let them travel witht eh ball as long as the dunk is showy). Anyways, heres to digressing from a tanget (double digress!).

-Kesich

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.

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.

Right and Wrong
 

Ben,

I hate to pass judgment, but I am going to: You are right and you are wrong.

Your are right: What is legal at one competition may not be legal at another -- but this will only affect those that push the limits of the rules even though they have been asked not to.

You are wrong: This year's game is not setting up a scenario where judges and refs can play favorites as they like -- I won't even address this silly concept.

Your are right: Many people seem to disregard the "professionalism", unfortunately, I think I need to point out to you that you are one of them.

You are wrong: No judge will scream bloody murder if a robot so much as goes on the opposite side of the field.... the word silly comes to mind again.

You are right: The volunteers with good intentions will screw up - they are human.

So, to quote another... "Each of us has a finite amount of available energy. It is up to us to decide how it will be expended. You can expend significant energy whining and complaining about what is wrong with FIRST, life, the universe, and everything. Or you can re-direct that energy into finding a way to improve the situation and making something positive out of the whole experience. So, where do you want to direct your energy?"


Aidan

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

If the rules were very precise, a team could possibly find a loophole and still build their robot around a strategy that FIRST is clearly trying to avoid. By making grey areas, teams will naturally stray from such a strategy in fear of penalties. Thus FIRST eliminates the unwanted strategy. Doesn't this discussion prove that the rules are acomplishing what they were meant to?

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Wow - one of the great things about CD is getting to see different perspectives, thoughts, and discussions. Then every once in a while you come across a post which is just so off base that it actually manages not to offer one constructive or useful thought.

Ben, I've read some very well thought out and constructive posts from you, so don't think I'm commenting on anything other than this post. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you either:

A - are having a real bad day / needed to vent
B - needed some cash and volunteered for some university study on the effects of minor exposure to Mad Cow patties
C - had a traumatic childhood experience when your junior league "under 8" soccer team was robbed of a playoff victory by a corrupt and evil referee who had bet on the other team
D - lost a bet and had to post claims with no actual logic or foundation of truth
E - don't understand FIRST, the 2004 game, and the roles of refs, inspectors, and judges


Again, main word that comes to mind when scrolling through your post is "wow". Not sure where to start, so here goes:

This has option "B - mad cow university study" written all over it.
What game have you been analyzing? If you are a rookie in FIRST, then I understand the lack of understanding in how different and structured the roles of judges, refs, and inspectors are. And "tricking" other teams - how in the world does that relate to the rest of the sentence about judges and refs? Forget I asked, I really have no interest in an attempted answer.

umm, this makes me think it might be option "C - bad childhood experience with a ref."
I don't know about your team - but most everyone else plans on playing FIRST FRENZY - Raising the Bar. Please don't try to lower the bar. Also, FYI - FIRST will be having conference calls with all head refs at all events so that they know the rules and the intention behind them. There is no "vagueness" to these rules - please don't confuse "simple" with "vague"...there's a big difference.

wow. could be a result of option "A - bad day, needed to vent"
I'll chalk this up to youthful frustration. Life is too short to be so paranoid and cynical. If you want to apply that quote to Presidents, Congressmen, and Enron - feel free, you'll have many valid points. But a non-profit volunteer driven event? Trust me, the refs and judges will have a full understanding of the clear, concise, and non-vauge rules. If you want to lawyer the rules and try to push the limits of what the clear intention of a rule is - feel free, but don't complain when the call goes against you. Will some mistakes be made, and a few probably incorrect calls made - absolutely. But it will be a simple mistake, nothing based on prejudice or bias.

this one makes me think option "D - you must have lost a bet."
No way you would have voluntarily taken credit for that prediction. When going on the other side of the field is outlawed, please reference back to your predicitions so you can say "I told you so". (Lavery, please let me know if there is an upcoming update with the "it's illegal to go to the other side of the field" rule so I can quickly edit this...thanks. :) )

big WOW. clearly a result of option "E - don't understand FIRST, the 2004 game, and the roles of refs, inspectors, and judges" Ben, there is good news here with a big silver lining: you have painted yourself such a cynical, pessimistic, flawed, incorrect of view of the game, the judges, and the refs that you will most likely look back and be pleasantly surprised and happy with what you see is reality in March and April. You've actually managed to lower the bar for your expectations so much, that it would be almost impossible for the game not to raise the bar and be much better than you predict.

I guess time will tell - but I would encourage you to step back, take a deep breath, challange yourself and work constructively with your team to have a fun and enjoyable season, and take the season to learn a bit more about what FIRST is truly about. I think you're going to be surprised and wish you a truly wonderful season.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Jason... you're the man.

Yes... that statement merited a post in this thread.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Jason Morella has appropriately addressed the content of the subject post. But I just cannot let the final closing comment go by without responding.

Ben, I don't know why you are participating in the FIRST program, or what you perceive you are getting out of it. I am not going to tell you what you should or should not believe about the goals of FIRST, how it should impact your life. I am not going to play "values police" and tell you that all your views are wrong because they are not consistent with the stated values of FIRST, or how those values should be reflected in the implementation and play of the game. Those are all things that you are going to have to figure out for yourself.

But I am also not going to just sit here silently and allow you to insult a group of people that I honor, respect, and admire. You have flat out crossed the line with this statement. You have very effectively impugned the integrity, intentions, and character of virtually every volunteer who has willingly given of their time and effort (and, frequently, finances) to support this program from which you benefit. You have just called them liars and cheats, and lumped them all together as the type of people that would willingly throw a match.

Your statement is incorrect. It is inappropriate. It is insulting.

I hope you will recognize just how unacceptable this type of comment is within this community. And at every upcoming competition event that you attend, I hope you will go out of your way to find every volunteer judge, referee, field attendant, score keeper, and stage hand, and apologize.

-dave lavery


Brandon - this has gone far enough. This thread started off bad, and has become worse. Please close the thread.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

In simple terms, you're pissing in the well you drink from. These people put in countless hours worth way more than is what is put in our measly kits. One of my team mentors kept track of his hours he put in on the project last year and at $15 an hour he would have made over $15,000. And that is only for one person and his wife didn't kill him. The volunteer for FIRST are by far the programs most valued asset. I remember a certain judge at LSR that was so impressed with the program and my team last year that he brought his whole family to visit us at the championships. This is how FIRST should work. We should work to impress these judges and refs enough that they really want to come back and are as excited about the program as we are. If we don't appreciate them for the great work and effort they put in and instead refer to them as biased liars then we may be losing out on some great people who have much to offer to your FIRST experience beyond the robot.

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

You're right - I apoligize, and I was actually have a pretty terrible day. I had just come out of an arguement when I checked the board. I guess I unloaded my fustrations onto you guys.

Sorry - and I didn't mean a lot of what I said. I respect FIRST volunteers a lot, and did not intend to berate them the way I did.

I sincerely apoligize, and I will be sure to keep away from my PC when I'm upset in the future.

--Ben

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

Hey guys- I guess the title of this original post was correct because with 61 replies now there apparently IS controversy.

But I think it is time to get building and stop arguing. The rules are as they are and we all have our strategies to work with. Hopefully all our teams are up and running.

For the record- I never meant to imply anything about judge/ref corruption in my original posting but I do think this game is more human oriented than it should be. That's just my opinion. But rest assured- I know of at least one robot that will be heard in this game and I'm sure there are a number of others in the wings.

What I really want to know is "where did they pack the clowns?" ;)

Good luck and my guys will see you at NJ, Md and Ga.

WC

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

All -

I slammed Ben pretty hard, in public, for his earlier statement. Given that, I feel I must also publicly comment on his response since then.

Everyone has bad moments they regret, and makes bad decisions that they later realize were mistakes (yeah, even some of us rocket scientists!). One of the true signs of strong character is the ability to recognize those times, and stand up and take responsibility for the mistake. Only then can you learn from it, get past it, and move on.

Ben has recognized the impact of his public comments. He has publicly and privately apologized, and taken full responsibility for his statements. Although I certainly disagreed with his initial statements, I must commend him for his character in correcting the situation, and his stand-up behavior since then.

Ben - You have done the right thing. Thank you.

-dave

Re: Goaltending- the next big controversy
 

I'm going to close this temporarily to let things cool down. Hopefully we can reopen this, as there has been some good discussion earlier on.