[JAlpert]

The penalties are ridiculous. Absolutely, without a doubt, ridiculous.

Dean Kamen, in his annual speech, habitually compares FIRST to a sport. However, the penalties incurred in the 2005 game do not reflect any sort of penalty scheme in any sport in any part of the world. None.

When penalties completely affect the outcome of a game, they should not be called. This is why referees in basketball refrain from calling fourth-quarter technical fouls or ticky-tack fouls (fouls which are called on a technicality, but whose consequences had no effect on the game). The refs should NOT decide the outcome of a game. The talent of the players of that game should.

This, of course, touches on the main controversy with penalties in sports. If blatant penalties are not called, they may affect the game just as much as ticky-tack penalties that are. However, in general, sports referees consider the gravity of each penalty they give. Sports officials hate to decide games. Rightfully so.

30-Point penalties in the 2005 game therefore do not make sense. They determine the outcome of the game. As soon as a 30-point penalty is given, the match is effectively worthless, as the offending team no longer has any reasonable chance to win.

I am in no way saying the penalties in place are unjustly so. Obviously, most of the penalties are in place for good reason. The human loading-zone penalty protects human players, for instance. This penalty also protects a disabled robot from attack as a sitting duck.

Rather, I make the assertion that 30 points is a ridiculous value to be deducted from scores that often never even reach that number (in qualifying, at least).

Obviously, FIRST is trying to discourage dangerous behavior with a 30 point, game-nullifying penalty. However, I believe penalties should be worth 3 or 6 points (the equivalent of one or two tetras), just as basketball free-throws are shot to compensate for injustice. ALSO, in situations where a robot is endangering the safety of humans (an arm goes out of the field, etc), the offending robot should be disabled for a short period of time (15-30 seconds).

I believe this type of system would assess the gravity of each offense individually, and apply penalties accordingly. Dangerous robots are neutralized and will avoid this behavior in the future, but the round is not a lost cause.

Please, let the robots play. Let's find out who has the best team, not the luckiest.