YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

You Make The Call (YMTC) is a series of situations where you can play ref and make a call. YMTC situations are not meant to represent situations that have occurred at competitions.

In the finals, the blue team fell just a few points short in the first round. In the second round, the blue team has come up with a plan to counteract the red team taking the 2X ball off of the blue mobile goal. The round starts with redabot knocking the bonus balls off of their perches and positioning itself perfectly to get the 2X ball from the blue mobile goal. As soon as the autonomous period ends, redabot grabs the 2X ball on blue's mobile goal. Before redabot is able to remove the 2X ball, the blue team's human players hit the 2X ball, which is in the grasp of redabot and still on top of the blue mobile goal, with ALL 6 of the 5 point balls that are positioned in the player station.

YOU MAKE THE CALL! Do you ...
(please note that you can choose multiple options with this YMTC)

Please base your ruling on the 2004 rules. If you find a specific rule that addresses this situation, please share it with everyone.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

The rules were specifically changed in one of the first few updates to state that as far as goaltending is concerned, the 2x ball is considered an extension of the robot when it is being held by that bot. This would lead me to believe that an extension of the robot is blocking the downard movement of those 6 balls into the mobile goal. Sounds like goaltending to me. -60 for the red team (though i can't imagine a human player firing off all 6 of the balls at the goal before the bot could fully remove the 2x ball)

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

A similar situation occured during the Central FL regional. Our partners, team 86, went to remove a capped mobile goal from the other alliance, and their human player shot two balls right at the 2x. This ensued a debate between the refs on wether or not there was goaltending, because the ball was removed from the goal (but still in the way of the goal.) We were penalized and lost the match. However, I dont't agree with the call because the human player shot the ball with no intenion of making the ball in the goal.

Go here and scroll down to match 92:

http://www.soap.circuitrunners.com/2004/movies/fl/

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

To the letter, it is in fact goaltending, because the robot contacting the ball makes the ball count as 'part of the robot,' and clearly the balls would have to be in downward flight (unless they were bounce-passed or something). It's also clear however, that the balls were not intended to be scored, and to any reasonable person, it's a no-call. FIRST has purposely been vague and ambiguous here so that refs have a bit of leeway; they make no mention of human player or robot driver intent, meaning that refs can do what they think is appropriate. There should probably be a rule saying the refs can judge the intent and it's at their discretion to give penalties on that basis, which would eliminate the disparity between calls of this nature (i.e. one ref might give a penalty for this occurence while another might not). But we're engineers, not lawyers, so that would be a waste of time, because we all knew what FIRST meant. :p

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

we asked the judges at buckeye about this rule and they stated:

if the human player was to throw a ball at the opposing team while trying to decap we will try not to penalize it because the robot is trying to uncap not goaltend....if the robot sat there acting like it was goaltending then we would throw the flag other then that that is a no....

we had made a play Flag Em' we called it where if the opposing team was uncaping our goal we were going to throw a ball at them and get that team penalized but we asked the refs and above is what they told us.. so we trashed the play...

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

The issue here is, I believe, intent. The intent of the rule is to prevent teams from building a device that prevents shots from being scored, or using a ball as such a device. The blue team's behavior breaks neither of these rules. Redabot is trying to play the game correctly, by getting the ball to cap a goal, and the blue team is cheaply trying to use a loophole to score some quick points. If I was a ref, I would award the Blue team no points and a stern lecture.

I'm also of the mind that, if a team doesn't dawdle in capping their opponent's goal, they shouldn't be called for goaltending if a ball or two happens to hit the big ball. The goaltending intent was not there, so the goaltending call shouldn't be there.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

As others have already stated, I do believe that it is considered goaltending. Although I cannot find a specific line in the rulebook stating uncapping, it says a robot, including a 2x held by a robot, cannot impede the downward flight of a ball towards a goal. This would imply it doesn't matter whether you're capping or uncapping, it's still goaltending.
If the opponent throws a ball toward the goal, and it hits a ball that you're holding on top of the goal, then it's a high possibility that the ball had the POTENTIAL to go in.

While the intent may not be to goaltend, you are still actively interfering with the opponents shot. How is the judge supposed to fairly call your "intent"? Read your mind? Yes, you may obviously be in the process of uncapping, but if it takes you 40seconds to uncap a goal, how does the judge know that it really takes you that long, or you're just doing it slow to be in their way? (not nice, but could happen). Or maybe a robot is having trouble uncapping and takes forever, while the opponent keeps trying to throw balls into that goal and you're in the way..
However, the argument would be that if you weren't trying to UNcap the goal, then the 2x ball would be on there in the first place, so the opponent couldn't get balls in the goal anyways.

I don't know. I do know that in the Q/A system, they answered this question by saying, it is goaltending in the event of capping AND uncapping. Either way, if you have hold of the 2x ball, it's part of your robot, and you're interfering with the downward flight. Though the Q/A is not the "law", there are many sides to the argument and it should be cleared up. This debate has been discussed before.

But, I am personally going to make some contacts and see if we can get it cleared up once and for all before nationals by the head refs. Then, all the divisions will be making the call the same way if it does happen.
thanks,

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

I agree. If anything, I would penelize blue for goal tending. (Or are human players not eligable for that?) By the sound of it, either blue shot the balls before relizing that red had grabbed the 2x, or threw with the intention of bouncing the 2x out of redabot's grasp.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

Wow! I hadn't thought of that one. Great question!

In soccer, the referee often looks at the intention of the player committing the act. For example, if the ball hits a player’s hand, did he put his hand there to block the shot or was his hand there already and the ball hit his hand before he could move it? If the player intentionally blocks a shot with his hand, it is a penalty.

In this case, since the yellow ball was already on the mobile goal, if the red team’s robot wasn’t there, the small balls would not have gone into the mobile goal anyway, so the blue team had no chance to score on that goal, and they could have shot at the other goal. The red team’s intention was to remove the yellow ball, not block the mobile goal. Blue’s intention was to try to cause red to commit a foul by shooting where blue had no chance of scoring. My ruling would be that the red team was not goal tending, since their effort was to remove the ball which would actually help blue score.

Here are the updated rules:

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

This one is simple. The rules and the situation are clear and straightforward.

Redabot is in contact with the 2X ball. For the duration of that contact, the ball is considered part of Redabot. The blue alliance throws balls towards their mobile goal. The balls are deflected and prevented from entering the goal by the 2X ball (which is currently considered part of Redabot). Under Rule G20, this is clearly goaltending. Since this happens six times before the red alliance thinks enough to let go of the 2X ball or move the goal out of range, they will be penalized for each occurrence.

The INTENT of both the red and blue teams do not matter, and do not factor in to the determination. It is impossible for the referees to determine the intent of the teams, in this situation or any other. It is NOT the referees job to determine the intent of the teams, and during their training they are explicitly counseled not to do so. To ask them to determine intent is absurd, and would lead to questions of skewed impartiality, favoritism and poor judgment on virtually every referee call. The only things that should be considered are the specific, observable facts and the rules that apply to the situation.

Blue has played with a perfectly legal and viable strategy. Red has made the choice of contacting the 2X ball while in range of the blue human players throw. Red has put themselves in the situation where they could run afoul of the goaltending rule. No one else made them do it. They have chosen to take a risk, and in this situation it caught up with them.

The red alliance takes a 60 point penalty, and you move on.

-dave

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

Lets modify this scenario a little.

What if redabot grabs the ball, and immediately after, bluabot also grabs the ball, and they are engaged in a tug of war when the 6 balls hit the big ball.

Is it still goaltending for redabot? What about bluabot? Can bluabot goaltend it's own goal?

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

That is exactly why intent should be factored in; otherwise, the whole reason the goaltending rule exists is perverted, and I'll explain why. First of all, regarding judging intent*, refs in athletic sports do it all the time -- it's a part of the game -- and so do FIRST ones, even though they may be officially instructed otherwise (I cite the example of tipping other robots). It's pretty reasonable to say that if both robots are fighting over the ball, the intent of Redabot is not to block shots (this is a judgement the ref can safely make, and if there is an argument everyone must remember a ref's call is final). Therefore, no penalties should IMO be counted and the human player(s) should cower in shame for wasting six shots and/or trying to cause the opponent to get penalties. This is not the way FIRST refs are instructed to call it, and I wouldn't argue it with an official should it happen to me; all I'm saying is that I don't believe it should be this way.

Here's what happens when the rules are interpreted exactly as they are written: Looking at <G21>, the ball is considered part of both robots, because they are both manipulating it. According to <G20>, blocking one's own shots results in penalties (in addition to of course, blocking the opponent's). Therefore both teams get -60 penalties, because there is no mention of intent in the rules.

The intent to goaltend in Redabot was not there. Giving penalties to the shooter's team is absurd (and isn't practiced by refs anyway, regardless of whether they are supposed to). Furthermore, Bluabot is forcing a penalty upon the opponent, which is neither G nor P in my book. By such logic, I could place my robot in front of my own corral in auto mode in order to disqualify the robot I know comes streaking down the side full-speed. This is not GP in my book.



* I should note that 'the Blue Alliance throwing balls toward their mobile goal' is a judgement of intent by the ref. How does (s)he know that the human player was throwing a ball at his/her own goal and not simply directly at a robot? Since the ref won't call a ball thrown at a robot in open field goaltending, the ref is judging the intent of the human player in order to ascertain whether or not to award a penalty.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

As much as I disagree with the human players decision...it is goaltending. That strategy is definetly not GP, but legal :rolleyes:

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

And how exactly have you determined that "unless intent is factored in, the whole reason the goaltending rule exists is being perverted?" Do you KNOW the exact reason that the goaltending rule was written, and the intent of those that wrote the rule? Unless you have explicit knowledge of the intent of the rule-writers, then all you are doing is guessing about their intent. And your guess is biased by your beliefs, personality, values, experiences, and preconceived notions. It is subjective, and of minimal value in the determination of the actual intent of those that wrote the rule. Therefore, your guess of their intent is fundamentally useless when trying to determine the actual intent. The only way to accurately identify the intent is to get it straight from those that wrote the rule, by asking them and letting them provide the answer.

And that is exactly why asking the referees to determine intent and apply that estimation to a rules interpretation is absurd. The referees cannot accurately determine the intent of a team just by observation. There is no way for them to identify what was in the minds of the team at the time a perceived violation took place. There is no reasonable way to identify the team intent in the context of an ongoing game, and it is unreasonable to try to determine it after the fact (I can just see it now - referees hooking up team members to lie detectors in between rounds to determine whether they meant to violate a rule or not...).

Since intent cannot be accurately determined by remote observation, and accurate determination of intent in the context of the game is unreasonable, any estimation of intent is by definition inaccurate. Since it is inaccurate, it must be ignored.

No, it's not. Determination of whether the ball is being thrown towards the mobile goal or not is a straightforward decision. Either it is heading toward the goal, or it isn't. The presence or absence of an opposing robot is irrelevant to the determination.

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.

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.

This whole discussion illustrates exactly why the referees need to stick to strict interpretation of the rules. Attempts to determine a team's intent is, by definition, subjective and open to multiple interpretations. Observable facts are not. In this example, the facts are clear. The rules are clear. The intent of the team is indeterminate, and therefore irrelevant. You may not like it, but those are the rules.

-dave

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

Dave, it would appear that we are of different camps with regard to how we believe refs should call games. I take a more judge-style approach that asks refs to make rulings often (for example the intent call), which have the potential to be inconsistent, whereas you (I believe) are saying that refs are there more to be conduits of what is written. The problem is, that I don't think what is written about goaltending addresses the above situation to my, or any ref's satisfaction. If the ref were to judge intent, however vague the rules were about this type of situation, it would not matter, because assuming the intent was caught on to, the ruling would be fair. I did not say what I believed the purpose of the goaltending rule was. In order to further this, now I will:

The goaltending rule is in place to prevent un-GP shot-blocking devices and strategies that would arise without such a rule.

I make no claim to have any knowledge of what it actually was (I'd have to ask someone like Dave Lavery to find out the actual answer!), but I think through inference that much can be figured out.


I think you misinterpreted here. I am using an example to show that while you are eliminating the variable of the robot driver's intent by saying you won't factor that into a goaltend call, 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.


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)? Since the ref doesn't want to be a Clinton, he will call a penalty and say the ball was heading toward the goal, because maybe it missed by only two feet, and thus might have clipped PVC. According to his instructions, he must make this call. I should note that I have seen this happen before in a match without a call, because the ref judged the intent.


Agreed. If you think I am trying in any way to criticize the efforts of refs, you are sorely mistaken. Still, refs and rules are accountable, and reform is a neccesary part of any rules body. I think what I'm saying makes sense, and that is all I'm saying.


Which is of course where you and I differ. I believe refs should use their judgment to determine call or no-call. Objectivity is overrated as I see it, and 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. Your approach eliminates this variable completely, which I admit is the next best thing, but I think it has its flaws; it'd be silly if handballs in soccer were always called, and I think calling a penalty on someone's actus reus alone (namely having your robot near the goal) shouldn't happen.


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.

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?
 

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?
 

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.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

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

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

That's not what Dave Lavery said, though

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

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.

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?
 

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?
 

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

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

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.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

As mentioned before, you cannot be penalized for stopping a ball from going into your own goal. The fact that you don't get points is penalty enough. If you are not trying to score why would you be throwing the ball towards the goal. The question still stands, which robot is deemed to have the ball as an extension of their robot? Both cannot as then they would become 1 robot not 2. Again I stress that I am not questioning the rules, just interested.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

I have a different viewpoint on this. Per G21, the ball is only considered an extension of the robot IN THE CASE of goal tending.

Since the blue team is attempting to retrieve the yellow ball to cap a goal, they aren't goal tending, so the yellow ball is not an extension of the robot.

It would be nice if we could just have things be black and white, but sometimes they aren't, and this is one of those cases. Part of the game is retrieving yellow balls from mobile goals. That isn't goal tending. Goal tending is blocking balls headed for a goal. Are we now supposed to decide not to retrieve yellow balls anymore so as not to "violate" a goal-tending rule? No, because that isn't the rule. And if someone is making that the rule in an effort to make things straightforward and "non lawyer-like", then in my opinion, they are making a mistake in this case. We have to protect the right of teams to legally go after the yellow balls when they are at rest on a mobile goal, as that IS part of the game. To suddenly decide that picking up a yellow ball is a violation is to change the intent of the game. Fact is, we aren't playing basketball, so basketball rules shouldn't be imported without a lot of thought as to when and where they should and shouldn't apply to our game.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

Some definitions from the Game rules...
Goaltending:
A ROBOT cannot interfere with a SMALL ball on its downward flight toward a goal or within a goal.
Robot:
Anything (which has passed inspection) that a team places on the field prior to the start of a match.

The goaltending rule:
<G20> ROBOTS cannot GOAL TEND either the Mobile or Stationary Goals. If a ROBOT GOALTENDs or de-SCORES any SMALL ball, the referee will throw a red/green or blue/green 10-point penalty flag for each occurrence.

I don't understand how anyone can interpret the rules to mean that only 1 robot can be called for goaltending at a time. I also don't see where it says that a robot can not be flagged for goaltending if they are in front of their own stationary or mobile goal.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

I'm going to retract my interpretation of what Dave said. After re-reading the post I realize he said the referees do not have to make the estimation as to whether the ball would have gone in.

However, I still don't feel this would have been called goaltending. Although, I don't have a real good reason why, other than my interpretation of Dave and the rules.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

Which is exactly why "intent" should not be a major factor in the referees decisions during the game. If you don't know the intent of the rule-writer, then all you have to go on is the words of the rule itself. If you don't know the intent of the teams, then all you have to go on is their set of observable actions.

Besides, how would you ever know what my "intent" was anyway, either in wording of the rules, or in this discussion (Warning: one of my favorite classes in high school was "Debating" - I used to love to take the side that was contrary to my personal beliefs, just to see if I could "put myself in the other person's shoes," understand their viewpoint, and argue it successfully)? For all you know, Jonathan Lall and I could be in complete agreement on every point, and just having fun in a good debate. :D

But there is one other note. Several folks have compared the jobs of the FIRST referees with other sports referees. But there is at least one major distinction that you have to keep in mind, which limits the applicability of this reasoning. Major sports referees receive considerable training and usually have years of experience with the game before they start calling high-level (particularly college- and professional-level) games. With that experience, they can make reasonable estimations of whether a team is acting within the spirit of the game or not.

But the vast majority of FIRST referees are somewhat similar to the amateur referee who gets pulled in once a season to call a little league baseball game. Except that during the off-season, all the rules for the game have been completely re-written, and the team is now playing soccer instead, and the referee has one day to learn all the new rules. In this situation, the referees have no extensive experience base with the game, and only a very quick familiarity with the rules. The nuances of the game play and subtleties of strategy are difficult to determine and differentiation between valid tactics and poor sportsmanship is not always obvious.

For that reason the once-a-year little league-turned-soccer referees and the FIRST referees must both rely on the only solid information they have - the rules. If FIRST ever gets to the point where they can have paid referees who can devote three months learning all the intricacies of the game and observe thousands of matches to learn all the subtleties before calling their first match, then things will be different. But until then, as long as we are relying on (very good and enthusiastic) amateur referees, we have to be realistic about what we are asking them to do.

This is my position, and I am sticking to it. Or then again, I could just be enjoying a good debate! :)

-dave

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

Yes, but since goaltending is the act of impeding a balls downward flight toward a goal... and a 2x is considered part of the robot in the case of goaltending... then once you grab and have hold of that 2x ball, if you're still in the way of someone's shot, you can get called for goaltending. It doesn't matter what the intention was.

Yes they may be retrieving a 2x ball from the goal, but you gotta do it quick. That's just part of the game. Most times I see the mobile goal being uncapped before it's been moved, and I haven't seen too many uncappings of the stny goal, but the ones I have seen, it's right at the end of the match... So far, I haven't really seen goaltending a big issue anyways, I think a lot of strategies haven't called for it.... or else everyone's afraid of getting called for it, so they play their own offense.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

I do understand that. Actually I am not talking about intention at this point. If the yellow ball is on red's mobile goal, then red can't score in that goal. If blue grabs the yellow ball to remove it, it is clear that they are not goal tending as the goal was blocked. In basketball, you have to DO something to PREVENT a ball from going in to be called for goaltending. In this case, the blue team is actually making it possible for a ball to go in. That clearly is not goal tending, since their action is one of making it possible to score and not one of making it impossible to score.

True, someone could decide that that action is goal tending. Well now we are talking about the definition of goal tending, but since it comes from basketball, it sure isn't defined as removing a ball so that someone can score.

Dave makes a good point about the fact that our referees have very limited experience. I think in this case that could be handled by telling them that if the ball is on a goal and a team goes to remove it, it isn't goal tending. If a team goes to put a yellow ball on their opponent's goal, it is goal tending if a ball strikes the yellow ball. I think that everyone could live with that interpretation, and I doubt if it would be a hard rule for the referees to deal with.

However, as you say, it hasn't been a big issue anyway, so we will all survive whatever the interpretation of the rule. My only grip is that I would like to see teams validated for picking up the mobile-goal yellow balls as per the kickoff instead of getting a penalty flag, which to me has a stigma of "you did a no-no". It's a little like saying, "We are going to reward you for doing such-and-such" and then saying, "You were bad for doing such-and-such". In other words, it's inconsistent with the game as presented. The game as presented in the kickoff to me is the "Constitution" of the game, and that should be held up as the model to follow, with subsequent rules aligning with it. Otherwise, we get teams building robots and then finding that their robot isn't valid for the game as it came to be interpreted later.

I guess that's it. I just don't want the game changed from the way it was presented in the kickoff. And to me, ruling that picking up a yellow ball is goal tending IS a change from what we were told to do to win.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

you can score balls into a capped goal - Ive seen lots of balls go into a goal between the poles

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

Just a quick side-note. Try not to put TOO MUCH emphasis on the game trial run that is shown during the kick-off presentations. You have to recognize one very important fact: at the time that the game is presented, it has never been played even once under actual competitive conditions. The game design team is comprised of a very small number of people. They design the game and run through dozens of test scenarios and trial runs. They develop and test (and eliminate) many game strategies and options. But the reality is that each of their test runs are conducted under controlled conditions that may not accurately reflect what can happen during an actual competition.

The game design team does think of most of the options, problems, loopholes, and quirks of each game. However, given the realities of the schedule and process, they are never going to find all of them. And given that their combined brain power (as impressive as it is :D ) can never equal the combined brain power of the 20,000 FIRST participants that analyze, scrutinize, dissect, and reflect upon the game when it is unveiled at the kick-off, the teams are always going to find a few things that the game designers missed. Thus, every year there are always a few "Doh!!!" moments for the game designers when the teams see something the designers missed, and updates have to be issued to correct the oversights.

So while the idea that the game presented at the kick-off is perfect and everyone should adhere to that model is ideal, the reality is that we know it will need to be tweaked as things are discovered after the game is actually played "for real." Obviously, a lot of effort is put into minimizing the tweaking, but it will still happen. With that in mind, I would suggest that you might look at the game demos during the kick-off presentations as "very strong suggestions" rather than "bullet-proof cast-in-concrete" definitions of how the game should work.

-dave

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

Dave, perhaps one of the reasons that there is so much confusion is because of these Q/A exchanges.

(emphasis added)

Dave,

So, while the rules as written do match Benje's (and your) interpretation, the interpretation given by whoever answered those questions has the potential to cause a lot of misunderstanding.



Doug,

The answer to your issue depends on whether the balls have to have the potential to go into the goal, or whether they merely have to be thrown "toward" the goal. However, Answer 94 clearly states that you can be called for goaltending when uncapping.

See you at nationals.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

Thank you Ken, Dave and Joe for your responses.

They make sense. (I hadn't checked the Q and A board on this subject.)

I would still like to see the rule changed to "no goal tending if uncapping". However I will have to live with FIRST's interpretation. Hopefully there won't be any important matches decided by a team getting penalized when uncapping and the opponent throwing balls at them. To me, that is getting into the "lawyer zone": winning by intentionally drawing fouls where there was essentially no real chance of scoring and a nice stationary goal was wide open and closer.

(By the way, we get our capping ball in autonomous, so I'm not just saying this to help our team win.)

See you all on Thursday. It's going to be awesome. :-)

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

Thing I cant figure out in this whole thread is:

why would you uncap your OPPONENTS goal for them in the first place?

all you are doing is helping them score points

there are three 2x balls on the field - ive yet to see a match where more than one was touched by a bot.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

During our teams matches in the PNW regional, there were many times when we would choose the closest 2x ball to try to cap the big goal, and somtimes, we would cap a small and the large goal. there have been many times were we have used the ball from our opponents mobile goal to cap our own goals, making this scinerio very real for us. It is important for us to uncap opponents goals because we have a mechanism to grab goals, and moving their goal to our side usually causes that mobile goal to go unused during that match.

Re: YMTC: Is it goaltending?
 

You need to watch more matches then! There are many bots than can manipulate more than one 2x ball, or even use one, and go for another. Since a lot of strategies call for controlling the 2x balls, you go for whichever is closest to you, and maybe your partner can do the same. Not evenone has the capability to grab or push goals effectively to their own side, so you're not necessarily helping them score any points in the mobile goal. Sometimes the mobile goal never moves - it hasn't seemed to be an integral part of the game yet. I think most would gladly take control of the 2x ball to cap their own full goal even if it lets the opponent score a few balls in their mobile goal.