[Marc P.]

I've just read through this entire thread in one sitting, and I'm getting very discouraged by some of the borderline flaming and shouting going on between many of the people involved in this discussion. There are valid points on both sides of the debate, for and against the current penalty system. With that said, the game design commitee is made up of some very smart people, and I have no doubt they took all of these concerns into account before coming up with the current penalty system. It was said very early on in the season (kickoff?) that penalties will be a big thing this year- they will be strictly enforced, and they will have an effect on gameplay. With this known early on, when teams were faced with the decision to create an offensive, tetra maniuplating robot, or a defensive "brick bot," the positives, negatives, and actions/reactions of each type of bot should have been weighed and accounted for.

As Dean said at the kickoff in Rochester, everyone is a winner. It doesn't matter if you win or loose the competition itself, because everyone involved is walking away with real world engineering experience, and the satisfaction of knowing they are capable of creating something incredibly cool. Picking up a tetra is not an easy task. I saw many elegant and creative solutions to the problem of picking up such an odd object at the Rochester regional this weekend. I also loved to see the crowd cheer and scream whenever a robot picked up a tetra and successfully dropped it on a goal, especially if there was a large stack already in place. In many ways, this has been one of the most exciting games FIRST has ever come up with. For the first time since 2000, I found myself glued to the field watching matches, unable to look away, because I wanted to see if robot X could stack one more tetra to complete the row, or break up a row, or stack that high. This year's game is no doubt an offensive challenge, and I think that was made abundantly clear in the explanation of the rules at kickoff.

Now, that does NOT mean defense doesn't have it's place in the game this year. It's still perfectly legal to disrupt a robot trying to stack a tetra (and in many cases, it's necessary to do so for the sake of winning the match). However, in general it seems the rules are designed to encourage a more offensive design, to actually tackle and solve the challenge of picking up a game object and scoring points, rather than prevent other teams from doing such. Couple that with the safety of the human player actually getting close to the robot, and it seems the penalties have a logical purpose. Think of it this way too- if all robots on the field can obtain and stack tetras without hinderance, there's no reason not to see scores in the 50's and 60's and 70's regularly, and at such high scores, the penalties seem more fair at 10 points each (as an accidental penalty is just that- accidental, and shouldn't be repeated... intentional penalties are well worth their due). The 30 point penalty for robot contact has a pair of things to keep in mind. First and foremost- safety of the human players and auto-loading field attendants. Keep in mind the power many of these robots have, the motors, the pneumatics, and high flying arms of PVC and aluminum extrusion. It only takes one quick bash to send that arm or claw flying into the skull of a human player or field attendant. Second, the robot loading the tetra clearly had the intention to stack it or drop it in a goal to score some points. It's performing it's designed function, which again, is a relatively complex task (manipulating such an unusual object, as opposed to herding small balls around). It should be rewarded for it's design and creativity, for solving such a difficult problem in such a short amount of time (6 weeks anyone?). It should be allowed to at least have the opportunity to perform it's intended task (loading a tetra), while playing the game the way it was intended to be played (no other ways to score points/win other than the 10 for having all robots in the home zone).
Bots capable of moving tetras around should be able to at least pick them up without interference. I thought it was incredible to watch 4 or 5 of the robots on the field swing tetras around 10' in the air, and gracefully drop them on any of the 9 goals on the field. There's no more exciting feeling than watching that, and I think that makes for a far more interesting game than watching 6 bots shove each other around for 2 minutes. That picture I posted of "The Ultimate Stack" is the perfect example- 229 and 217 didn't try to shove each other out of the way to prevent stacking. Instead they went back and forth trying to best each other playing the game as the rulemakers intended. (Props to both teams for such a great match by the way.)

I do agree that the penalties do make it difficult to tell what's happened in a match in terms of score, but I think they are necessary in order to maintain the integrity of the game itself. The real time scoring (if it worked...) would provide a rough idea of what's going on for raw score, but what should/could be done is introduce a "penalty" signal on the real time scoring, like they do in football. If a flag is thrown in football, a yellow tag will appear in the corner of the screen saying "Flag" or "Penalty." This way, spectators know to expect an adjusted score, and it could make the game more exciting with more anticipation to see the final score- especially in matches where the real time scores are very close.

The biggest thing to keep in mind as a driver/operator/human player is that there ARE rules, they ARE enforced, and there ARE consequences for violating the rules. If you don't understand the rules, or don't intend to follow them, with all due respect you shouldn't be driving/operating/human playing. Accidents do happen, but there should be a conscious effort to avoid them, especially with the understanding that the rules will be enforced. This year, while they may subtract from the match scores, they will ultimately add to the game by giving robots better opportunity to do what they were intended to do.