Chief Delphi - YMTC: Is it goaltending?

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- You Make The Call (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=147)

- - YMTC: Is it goaltending? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27634)

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

with the 2x ball sitting on top of the goal a HP has a reasonable chance of knocking it off by flinging a ball at it

but if a robot is holding the 2x ball on or over the goal, it is preventing that from happening - the bot is tending the goal and should be penalized for each ball that hits the 2X, or itself.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

Is this goaltending?
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...tid=2123&stc=1
The rules, and Dave's explanation of the rules clearly say that this is goaltending, because the ball is in downward flight toward a goal, thrown by a human, and hits a robot in the way. A ref who calls it by the book calls goaltending, a ref who attempts to determine the thrower's intent may have a tougher time doing so--in either case, it's a farcical situation. Do we expect that the refs will call this one goaltending, or do we expect that the refs will make a judgement call, and say, no, this was a stupid fluke and was not intended as a scoring play?

The real problem here is that the rules don't call for a resolution to this situation that exists in accordance with common sense. Our much-vaunted anti-laywering is of no help to us here, because common sense dictates that the refs ignore this "goaltending", and let the play stand. The rule, however, demands a penalty, which would simply serve to demonstrate the inadequacy of the rule--what if this happened in a "critical" match (say the Championship finals), affecting the outcome?

We say that streamlining the rules is a good thing, and to an extent it is; but when the rules leave situations such as this open to debate--and despite the firm letter of the law, these rules are clearly open to debate, as evidenced by the discord in these threads--the rule becomes useless and indeed counterproductive.

(N.B. I really don't care what Jonathan had to say above--that's not relevant to my post in the slightest.)

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Is this goaltending?
[

No, it's not goal tending. Although Dave says, "toward" the goal, I'm sure he means "if the robot wasn't there would the ball have a reasonable chance of scoring in the goal." In your illustration, the ball would not have a reasonable chance of going into the goal and would therefore not be goal tending. Call the Harlem Globe Trotters, we found a new trick shooter :D

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

I think this whole YMTC was apparently answered in the Q&A back in January.

Quote:

#94
Q: If a team is attempting to uncap a goal and the opposing alliance throws a small ball at the goal at the same moment and it bounces off the large ball while the robot was still holding it, would that team be considered to be goal-tending?
A: Yes, you are goal tending if the goal you are attempting to cap or uncap is one of your opponents goals and the large ball interferes with a thrown ball with the potential to go in the goal (referee's judgement). See the definition of GOAL TENDING

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery

If, by any reasonable estimation by any reasonable person, the ball is heading toward a goal on the field (please don't be a Clinton and make me define the term "toward"!!!), then it is heading toward the goal. If the ball is obviously going into an area of the field where there is no goal, then it is not heading toward a goal - whether there is another robot there or not.

Reasonable chance doesn't matter--reasonable person does.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

, the human player is given free reign over whipping balls at robots to cause penalties. In effect, by saying "the driver is guilty of goaltending whether he meant to or not," you are absolving the human player of all responsibility for any malicious action he takes.

I personally think it's a little silly for a human player to maliciously "whip" balls at a robot in order to get them penalized. Why would anyone want to whip a ball at a robot (w/ or w/o a 2x ball)? Seems like a waste of time and possible points to be made elsewhere, even if you had good aim over the 7ft wall to "whip" it. I guess it could be a strategy but not a very good one (imo). You could wait the extra few seconds until they uncap it for you, and start making shots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

You defined "toward" in the very next paragraph. So what if a human player intends to hit the robot which is not in the way of the goal (i.e. he could hit the goal but goes for the robot beside it)?

Well, taking all judge of "intent" out, if a robot is beside the goal, hp shoots the ball and it hits the robot, then I wouldn't really consider that as the ball going "towards" the goal anymore. You already passed the point of "toward" if it hit a robot sitting next to the goal, and you can either have a ball goal in the goal, or hit a robot sitting beside the goal, but not both. If the robot is just sitting there on the side minding it's own business, not impeding your ball's downward flight, and you throw a ball at the robot, how is that goaltending? That's called dodge ball, and the robot is out! That's like if a robot was behind the goal, you overshot the ball to the goal, and it hits the robot sitting behind it, that's not goaltending. This really is being over-thought when the rules are pretty simple.

As said many times now, you simply cannot expect the judges to call "intentions" of a team's action. This is not sports and you won't change it. The rules are there to be followed. The rules are there to help refs make good, fair calls that are equal for all teams. Judging intentions of a robot cannot be done by a standard set of guidelines, even though some sports try to do so. But especially in this environment and this situation, it's just not feasible.... Unless they can read minds, but let me bet, they can't. Even if they could, it's not based on intentions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

I think refs, having the final say and all, can handle judgment calls without fear of annoying high school students whining about their calls. I think in the same way that they are instructed to think of "toward" as you said, they can successfully be given a guideline to determine intent.

Yeah right.. if we let actions be judged on intent, we'd not only have the high school students "whining", but everyone else in the building. Again, that's why we have rules... rules are written as best they can to avoid relying on anyone's opinion of what happened. (no i don't know the background of why the rules were written, but I believe that's one part of it :) ) We have a rule that states "a robot cannot cross the diamond plate wall into the hp ball corral". Should a ref back down on that penalty simply because the driver said "I didn't mean to cross into the corral, really I didn't".
As for the situation described earlier, if two robots are fighting over a 2x ball, I can't really give an opinion on that, I'm not sure what happens. I haven't seen it happen, and really hadn't thought about it. But you cannot goaltend yourself. I think that was discussed early in the season too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

We have paraded around my bias; to you the rules are clear. To me, they are not. Maybe that means I'm too stupid to figure them out, but judging by the fact that this YMTC exists, I'd say that they may not be as clear as you might believe.

No, you're not too stupid. I just think that some of the rules have been debated over and argued about and twisted any which way they could be in order to have a debate. Not deliberately, but any little loop hole that can be found to dance around the rule, it'll be debated.

This thread started out as a "is it goaltending if you uncap a goal?" type situation and YES.. it's goaltending because the rule says so. But all the little misinterpretations or "but it could mean this" gets blown out of proportion and tend to snowball.

I do believe, although the rules are pretty clear on most/all subjects, it's good to have the questions and debates come about to a certain extent. It does alert those in charge of things that need to be cleared up and even sometimes clarified at events so that everyone is on the same page.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

I actually don't mind the goaltending rules as they are that much, and yes I realize they are the rules. I said that already. That doesn't mean we can't debate them and possibly work toward reforming them, does it?

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

That's not what Dave Lavery said, though

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery

Note that the referee does not have to estimate whether the ball has a high probability of going in the goal, or if it is going to hit the goal, or if it would fly straight in without touching the posts. Under the instructions that the referees are given (reference: notes from weekly telecon between Benje Ambrogi and regional head referees), all they have to do is decide if the ball - if the flight path were uninterrupted by the goaltending robot - COULD have hit the goal. If that is the case, and the flight path was interrupted by the opposing robot (including a 2X ball being held by the robot), then the goaltending rules apply.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I think this whole YMTC was apparently answered in the Q&A back in January.
Quote:
#94
Q: If a team is attempting to uncap a goal and the opposing alliance throws a small ball at the goal at the same moment and it bounces off the large ball while the robot was still holding it, would that team be considered to be goal-tending?
A: Yes, you are goal tending if the goal you are attempting to cap or uncap is one of your opponents goals and the large ball interferes with a thrown ball with the potential to go in the goal (referee's judgement). See the definition of GOAL TENDING

This is the only statement that matters in competition, as in what FIRST says. Apparently, a team was smart enough to figure this out ahead of time and ask FIRST. FIRST ruled: we should spend our time making our uncappers faster instead of arguing over what FIRST ruled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan_lall

Yes, you can work towards reforming them, but until they are changed officially by FIRST, you must follow and live by the rules as they stand.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

That's not what Dave Lavery said, though

No it's not, that's my interpretation of what he said. He did say towards. However, I could throw a ball towards the goal and it could land behind the goal, or even 3 ft below the opening to the goal. I certainly hope Dave doesn't intend to count those as possible points.

Although judging by this thread I'm not sure if I should bet on what Dave's intentions were :o

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

1 things I would like to bring up.

1: even though on the same team as Jon we don't always share the same ideas.

2 : Ken, there is NO way a human player could ever knock the 2X ball off of the goal with a thrown ball. I have been to 5 regionals and even toughing the goal causes the ball to drop down deeper into the goal. This makes in even harder to get out.

3 : Dave, I believe that you are involved with the rule making. A good point was brought up about 2 robots fighting over the same 2X ball. If both robots are touching the 2X ball and a purple ball bounces off the 2X ball, which robot is deemed to be the controlling robot? The reason I ask is that if the red robot is trying to get the 2X ball from the blue goal then it would be goal tending but there is no penalty if the blue robot is trying to get the 2X ball as you can't be called for goal tending on yourself. I am NOT trying to be legalistic or cause more problems, just curious. If you would rather talk in person I could look you up at Championships.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve W

A good point was brought up about 2 robots fighting over the same 2X ball. If both robots are touching the 2X ball and a purple ball bounces off the 2X ball, which robot is deemed to be the controlling robot? The reason I ask is that if the red robot is trying to get the 2X ball from the blue goal then it would be goal tending but there is no penalty if the blue robot is trying to get the 2X ball as you can't be called for goal tending on yourself.

Can you point me to where it says you can't goaltend your own goal?

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

Can you point me to where it says you can't goaltend your own goal?

No, but unless you want to get lawyer-like, along with the real definition of goaltending having to do with the downward trajectory, an implied definition of goaltending is against an opponent, as with sports.
I don't know about all sports, but the ones I played, I don't think you get penalized for goaltending yourself.
There may have been a Q/A on it, but I don't recall. No, it's not directly written in the rules, but neither is "uncapping can result in goaltending"...

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve W

3 : Dave, I believe that you are involved with the rule making. A good point was brought up about 2 robots fighting over the same 2X ball. If both robots are touching the 2X ball and a purple ball bounces off the 2X ball, which robot is deemed to be the controlling robot? The reason I ask is that if the red robot is trying to get the 2X ball from the blue goal then it would be goal tending but there is no penalty if the blue robot is trying to get the 2X ball as you can't be called for goal tending on yourself. I am NOT trying to be legalistic or cause more problems, just curious. If you would rather talk in person I could look you up at Championships.

This is actually pretty simple. One robot is assisting, the other robot is goaltending. A 10 point penalty is assessed to both alliances.

See rules G19 and G20.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

This is actually pretty simple. One robot is assisting, the other robot is goaltending. A 10 point penalty is assessed to both alliances.

See rules G19 and G20.

What is it that one robot is assisting? The ball headed to the goal is blocked by the 2x ball held by two robots. No balls go in the goal.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

What is it that one robot is assisting? The ball headed to the goal is blocked by the 2x ball held by two robots. No balls go in the goal.

Good point, the ball never actually lands in the goal, oops :o

The rules never say that a ball can not be an extension of two different robots. Reading the rules verbatim, they do not distinguish whether goaltending is performed by an oposing allaince.

My verdict: both allainces are called for goal tending.