View Single Post
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-05-2012, 18:14
BrendanB BrendanB is offline
Registered User
AKA: Brendan Browne
FRC #1058 (PVC Pirates)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Londonderry, NH
Posts: 3,103
BrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond reputeBrendanB has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2012 Lessons Learned:The Negative

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor01 View Post
The Q&A specified that the 2(+) balls will be centered both lengthwise and widthwise on the bridges.

Specifically
The Q&A did but the game manual did not. As of right now (as far as I know) head refs follow the Game Manual NOT the Q&A. I'm saying that FIRST needs to establish that the Q&A should be followed as rules.

We both agree here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidstate89 View Post
A lot of teams adjusted for having to deal with whether the ball was new or whether it was used and worn down.

What was impossible to predict (unless you're Car-Nack) was that FIRST would use physically different balls from a different manufacturer/batch and that even worse we wouldn't have even been told. All over these forums you can see how the new ones they used in St. Louis had entirely different compression, texture, etc. This wasn't just a worn state vs. a new state. This was Ball A vs. Ball B where Ball B was either from a different manufacturer (not what from what I've seen) or an entirely different batch with a different...everything.

Catapaults were totally unaffected as far as not being jammed, but even if your shooter was fine, the new balls reacted totally differently to bouncing off of the backboard as well. Transparency at the MINIMUM from FIRST would have been appreciated if they were unable to secure enough balls from the initial batch to last the entire season. At least many of us teams would have had a fighting chance for adjusting our loaders for an entirely different ball.

We were prepared for new vs. used. We were not prepared for an entirely new batch, and I don't think that's too much to ask for. Especially if they would have provided an announcement telling us as much.
FIRST probably doesn't know that these balls are different and they don't have to make ensure every ball in every case they receive are identical. Yes these balls behaved differently but I point the finger (and even that is too harsh because we are a customer) to the manufacturer.

FIRST mentioned several times that there would be new balls for elims. We asked around at our regional (CT) if new balls would be introduced and they were. Ask and you shall receive. FIRST HQ doesn't directly control the field reset crew and the introduction of new balls. It is your responsibility to know your field at competition. Once those fields leave Manchester they are in the hands of the event.

Yes this was a frustration to teams but we can't complain to HQ saying they need to provide a more consistent game piece next season when all they did was order new balls for the championship elimination and that is what they received.

They probably don't know these balls were different!
__________________
1519 Mechanical M.A.Y.H.E.M. 2008 - 2010
3467 Windham Windup 2011 - 2015
1058 PVC Pirates 2016 - xxxx
Reply With Quote