[mathking]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Perhaps on offense, rules can be changed to credit an assist for mere CONTACT with a ball in a unique zone. Are you a statue of sadness? Partners can just plink balls off your motionless frame and get credit for the assist. Problem solved! Woot woot.

Defensive possession rules would remain the same as before.

Let's rolllllll for it.

Travis, this is a really good idea. If you guys are coming to the CORI event this year, we are still considering some rule tweaks. (Including changing some of the tech fouls to fouls.)

I read through these threads and I feel as though there are two distinct threads going. One is frustration with administration of the game (registering possessions, inconsistent fouls, cycles not starting on time) and the other is frustration with the basic rules of the game (you have to rely on your partners).

On the first subject I agree. At the start of the year (and even more after Crossroads) I have felt that what is needed are dedicated scorekeepers, so that a few more eyes are watching the match and the referees are focusing on fouls and not scoring. At Crossroads there were a number of matches with such problems. It may have just been my distorted perspective because I was refereeing there, but it seemed to me that at Queen City there were fewer big issues. It helped that the head referee had already refereed this year.

I am planning on recruiting enough volunteers for our off season event that we can have two people at each of the near side pads to watch for and record possessions, trusses, catches and scores. That way someone can stay focused on field at all times. Then the far side referees can focus on foul calls. This is not the first time I have felt that dedicated scorekeepers were needed. And in my opinion this is not the worst year for such problems. I think the inconsistent minibot races in 2011 might have been the worst example. "I know your bot slammed into the top of the tower first, but that wasn't hard enough to trigger the sensor, so you lose." Though the "automatic" scoring last year was certainly an issue. And there are always some issues. I can remember several times when controversial calls or no calls decided a match in the eliminations at a regional.

As for the complaints that this year's game makes good robots particularly vulnerable to bad alliance partners in qualification and thus to particularly unfair rankings, I am not buying it. As Sean pointed out already, I think nothing will ever beat 2007's match selection algorithm. I completely agree that this game is one in which one awesome robot cannot beat an alliance of three pretty good robots all on its own. The key is all on its own. I have yet to find even one parent or supporter (non team members) who went to watch this year and thought the game was boring. The consensus among the parents who have been to multiple competitions was that this one was more exciting and easier to understand than any they have seen since 2011. In spite of this being our worst on field performance in that time.

(Note: I am not directing this at posters in this thread. These observations were from my own observations.) I heard a few (not many) members from a few "good" teams being snarky about "bad" robots/teams needing to "read the rules and understand the game." And then complain that they got beat by a couple of mediocre robots and a box on wheels. When one of these comments was made, a team member for 3494, the Quadrangles asked the student "Why is it more important for them to do what you want than for you to do what they want? You are a team and you have to play the game together." Any response by me couldn't have improved on that.

I think it showed in the Quadrangles play at QCR. In my view they had were one of the two or three best performing teams there after the Bomb Squad. They had a good robot, but they (as well as 3266 and 3324) seemed to me to be the best of the teams at Queen City at adapting their style of play to compliment their allies. Their alliance in eliminations (with 868 and 3506) played very well. This is not a diss aimed at team 16. Their robot was just so good that almost everyone seemed to try to let them direct the flow of the game, and they were able to race down and help their allies with blocking or defense, then scoop up a ball and race down and score with it almost at will. And they showed in the finals that two teams that play well (2665 and 447) with an awesome robot are really
hard to beat.

I think that some teams who usually have really good robots are used to being able to dominate a game on their own. That is really hard to do in this game. I think that is a good thing. I think the laments that this system is really hurting the mid range robots is a little disingenuous. This year a team with a decent ball gatherer and a decent drive train can be a really effective robot. If they can score in autonomous and make truss shots they can be a top robot if they drive well.

We have never had one of the "awesome robots." So I would say that in terms of on the field competitiveness we are a mid range team. Our competitive experience at Crossroads was certainly frustrating. We had some cRIO issues (a couple times when other robots drove into us) that messed up our autonomous until Saturday morning. We scored in every match, but we had some relatively bad luck in terms of alliance pairings and fouls. We didn't get picked for eliminations, which hasn't happened to us at a regional since 2011. (Just to highlight an anecdote to show that random chance is not the exclusive bane of this year, in 2011 we didn't even get picked for eliminations at Buckeye and yet went 9-1 with a number 4 seed in qualifying at the Championships.) Yet my team still liked the game. They were down about not making eliminations, but certainly still had a lot of fun.

I coach cross country and track and field in addition to robotics. We have a saying we use a lot: "You can't control the quality of your opposition." My CC team won a big school state title in 2011. That same team would not have been able to win in 2012 or 2013. The team that won those two years was way too good. I had a 4th place team in 2010 that could have won in several years earlier in that decade. The second place team in 2013 is also in our district. They would have won most of the other years in the past two decades.

Which brings me back to my original point. You should be striving to win. And you have every right to expect the people putting on the event to do everything they can to make the event enjoyable and fair. And to be upset when mistakes, particularly avoidable mistakes, mess up results. (I am not telling people to stop complaining about the mistakes and issues. That is part of the process of improving. It is also part of making other people think about issues. When I talk to someone like Travis and hear what he is upset with, it makes me think more clearly about what is wrong and how to correct it. Hopefully this will make the Central Ohio Robotics Invitational a better event. Hopefully it also gives insight to those with the power to make changes in the regular season.) You also should remember that sometimes things will not go your way. Try not to confuse the frustration of things not going your way with the frustration of things not "going the way they should." Try to remember that winning is explicitly not the purpose of FRC competition.