[Brian Beatty]

There are a few points to address:

1)In my opinion, 79's defense was not a penalty. However, it was very aggressive and my vantage point was not as good as the refs.

2)I would prefer no defense. When that was tried in 2001, there was an uproar to bring back the interaction. In 2003, it wasn't battlebots, but it was right up next to it. It was a "game of denial" where offensive bots were completely nullified. This game is an attempt at a compromise.

3)Lighten up on the refs. These people are volunteers doing the best job they can with the game they were dealt trying to keep it as fair as possible. Yes, they were calling it tight(we were disabled twice at this regional), so you have to adjust.

4)As far as defensive penalties, my analogy goes back to my basketball days. Every now and then, it came a time to give a "hard foul". Most of the time, it was called a foul. Every now and then, it was called a "flagrant foul". Sometimes it was deserved, sometimes not. But as a caution to teams that play "hard defense", due to inconsistencies in human judgment, the risk will exist for a penalty under the current system.

5) FIRST is concerned about safety, but have only a 6'-8" wall as a barrier. Put up a 2-3 ft Plexiglas wall on top of the current operator's station. This will stop a whole bunch of disablements and make the game a more exciting game.

In conclusion, it was an unfortunate conclusion to the semifinal. Both alliances played well and were deserving. Let's hope that this experience makes for a better Nationals and a better FIRST.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty