Re: 3.2.3 Center Goal
 

Here is just my input after volunteering at the Waterlo Regional.

From what I have gathered most regionals after the first week knew about the inaccuracy of the automatic scoring system and had volunteers in place with counters counting the number of balls which entered each goal. We also would restart a match if the wrong team went on offence after autonomous mode. I am sure that those who were counting the balls counted all the balls that went in the goal even if they were bounced back by the chains. From what I see there was no match that had the final score swayed by a miscount or bounceback by the automated scoring.

Re: 3.2.3 Center Goal
 

If this is the case, whoever was counting balls potentially altered the results of your regional, as the rules quite clearly state that a ball shot into the center goal doesn't count until it's gone into the clear tube.

Re: 3.2.3 Center Goal
 

"The opening is backed by a rope mesh and suspended chains to absorb the impact of any scoring objects going through the opening. Scoring objects passing through the opening will be deflected downward by the mesh, and will exit the Center Goal by dropping into a collection tube at the bottom of the goal."


I just go back to the original definition of the rule, which sounds pretty durned definitive to me. Those are "will"'s up there, not "should"'s. It sounds to me like the original intent of the game designers was for every ball that entered the goal to remain there until it was counted. It was an original design objective FOR THE PLAYING FIELD. Just like the other underperforming areas of the field (automatic scoring system, for instance), that objective has not yet been met, and I'd expect FIRST to try their best to rectify the problem as the season progresses. Just as we must adhere to the rules applying to the robot design, FIRST must adhere to the rules and constraints they originally placed upon the playing field design, so the game plays as fairly as possible for everyone.

Has any GDC member publicly made a statement on bounceback? While a minimal amount of bounceback seems like an inevitable and acceptable part of the game, the extent to which it has occurred seems a bit alarming. I don't think there's a team out there that would complain if FIRST altered the chain design to minimize the bounce-back effect and bring the action of the chains closer to the definition of the rules.

At one event, we shot 3 balls into the center goal. When our fourth shot went in, ALL FOUR BALLS bounced back out of the opening simultaneously. It wa a rather unbelievable sight, and it changed the outcome of that match for us. That seems a little extreme. We have modified our launch parameters to minimize this in future events, but I hope FIRST can think of something simple, cheap, and creative (a curtain of fabric car wash-like strips?) to increase the damping of the balls once they enter the goal.

Re: 3.2.3 Center Goal
 

Dave has.

I guess what bothers me the most about this and other similar threads is the bashing of the field, FIRST, Hatch Technology and the mostly-volunteer staff at regionals. Sure, the field isn't perfectly reliable, the scoring system sometimes screws up, referees don't always see the same thing as the drivers and sometimes things just don't work quite the way we hoped. Sounds a bit like life to me! Isn't the point of participating in FIRST to learn life skills, particularly as they relate to technology and science?

FWIW, I know one experienced head scorekeeper who believes that this year's scoring system is the best FIRST has put together for several years - and that was in week one! This game raised the bar for FIRST and its suppliers, too. The hardware and software needed to count balls and control game periods is not simple ("trivial" tasks like knowing when ball counts are coming from an active goal and how long to wait for valid balls to come in at the change of periods, or how to count all the balls a robot can barf up at once) and I believe it cannot be bulletproof for any price we are willing to pay. (my two cents)