Scoring for No-Shows

[archiver]

Posted by Jason Rukes.

Engineer on team #109, Arial Systems & Libertyville HS, from Libertyville High School and Arial Systems Corp & SEC Design.

Posted on 9/28/2000 7:04 AM MST



I'm interested to hear from both sides on these questions.

1. If a team does not field a robot during a match, should they still receive qualification points for that match?

2. If a team does not field a robot during a match, should FIRST allow for an alternate robot to take its place?

[archiver]

Posted by Jim Meyer.

Engineer on team #67, HOT Team, from Huron Valley Schools and GM Milford Proving Ground.

Posted on 9/28/2000 9:24 AM MST


In Reply to: Scoring for No-Shows posted by Jason Rukes on 9/28/2000 7:04 AM MST:



: 1. If a team does not field a robot during a match, should they still receive qualification points for that match?

Yes! Taking points away from teams who do not field a robot will only force them to put nonfunctional robots on the field. I can think of no way to distinguish between a robot that broke when the match started and one that broke before the match started. The effect would be the same, you would just end up taking 'fix' time away from the team with the broken robot. Plus, last year, teams without robots could still score.

: 2. If a team does not field a robot during a match, should FIRST allow for an alternate robot to take its place?

I'm assuming that the purpose of this would be to help the team that gets partnered with the missing robot. Being partnered with a missing robot or one that breaks early in the match or just isn't very effective all seem the same to me. Maybe FIRST could change the scoring scheme to better reflect an individual robot's performance, at least for qualification purposes?

Interesting concept, I personally can't come up with a plan that would make it fair for everyone though. If I'm having problems with my robot I could ask a really good team to be my alternate. The opposing teams would be upset because their competitioin just got tougher bacause one of their opponents is broke. On top of these complications how would the points be handled?

I did like what I heard about the placebo bots of years past. Ineffective robots that were out there for entertainment only. I would like to se them return!

Sorry about being so long winded,

Jim

[archiver]

Posted by Jason Rukes.

Engineer on team #109, Arial Systems & Libertyville HS, from Libertyville High School and Arial Systems Corp & SEC Design.

Posted on 9/29/2000 8:33 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Scoring for No-Shows posted by Jim Meyer on 9/28/2000 9:24 AM MST:



: : 1. If a team does not field a robot during a match, should they still receive qualification points for that match?

: Yes! Taking points away from teams who do not field a robot will only force them to put nonfunctional robots on the field. I can think of no way to distinguish between a robot that broke when the match started and one that broke before the match started. The effect would be the same, you would just end up taking 'fix' time away from the team with the broken robot. Plus, last year, teams without robots could still score.

: : 2. If a team does not field a robot during a match, should FIRST allow for an alternate robot to take its place?

: I'm assuming that the purpose of this would be to help the team that gets partnered with the missing robot. Being partnered with a missing robot or one that breaks early in the match or just isn't very effective all seem the same to me. Maybe FIRST could change the scoring scheme to better reflect an individual robot's performance, at least for qualification purposes?

: Interesting concept, I personally can't come up with a plan that would make it fair for everyone though. If I'm having problems with my robot I could ask a really good team to be my alternate. The opposing teams would be upset because their competitioin just got tougher bacause one of their opponents is broke. On top of these complications how would the points be handled?

: I did like what I heard about the placebo bots of years past. Ineffective robots that were out there for entertainment only. I would like to se them return!

: Sorry about being so long winded,

: Jim

Whether FIRST changes the rule or not, I'd like to see teams adopt the following attitude:

If your robot is not working, send a team rep to the 3 possible allies for the next match and notify their team leader that your robot is having difficulty. Each team has the choice of either helping you or doing nothing, but it is their decision to do so.
During the match, send your human player to help your ally, and your drive team can help with strategy. At the very least you should cheer and have fun.

[archiver]

Posted by Joseph Dushko.

Coach on team #145, T-Rx, from Sherburne-Earlville Central School and Procter & Gamble Norwich.

Posted on 9/28/2000 12:43 PM MST


In Reply to: Scoring for No-Shows posted by Jason Rukes on 9/28/2000 7:04 AM MST:



I think that awarding points allows a team to stay in the mix by giving it time to repair a defect or mechanical problem. Perhaps disqualifying a team after 2 or 3 no shows would solve part of the problem.
An option for keeping it fair would be to select 3 teams for each alliance match. In the event of a no show or mechanical failure the alternate would play. The alternate could be designated in advance and only used if necessary. The team with the problem would get the qualification points of the other two.

[archiver]

Posted by David Kelso.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #131, C.H.A.O.S.-, from Central High School and OSRAM SYLVANIA/ Fleet .

Posted on 9/28/2000 2:26 PM MST


In Reply to: Scoring for No-Shows posted by Jason Rukes on 9/28/2000 7:04 AM MST:



This is really one of the most important topics that we need to discuss. FIRST is for everyone, no one wants to see a team penalized for not fielding a robot, and everyone knows the feeling that goes with having their robot not work properly on the field.

So, maybe if alliances are kept, there could be a way to have alliances work together, but not necessarily get the same number of points in the match.

[archiver]

Posted by Nate Smith.

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 9/28/2000 5:09 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Scoring for No-Shows posted by David Kelso on 9/28/2000 2:26 PM MST:



: This is really one of the most important topics that we need to discuss. FIRST is for everyone, no one wants to see a team penalized for not fielding a robot, and everyone knows the feeling that goes with having their robot not work properly on the field.

In some cases, however, having a broken ally gives your team more of a chance to get noticed by teams scouting for possible allies. In Florida last year, our ally had their machine on the field, but it basically just sat there, and we still ended up winning by about 15 points...

Nate