Scoring 2013, I can do better than that!

[Foster]

A Frisbee has a a defined weight, so weighing them is one strategy for counting how many in a goal. A strain sensor with +/- 300 grams is a great choice, settlement time may be an issue.

But scoring does seem to be a problem. And since HindSight (tm) is always 100% there may be better ways.

So how would you have scored?

As a VEX and Arduino guy, I would done an pair of Sonar Senors. Mounted on each side of the top opening pointing down and across to cover the opening. Two sensors triggered = score.

But since the Sonar needs a pulse (so there is a read/write cycle), I would go with a short distance IR sensor, then I can get a constant read.

What would have been your plan?

[joelg236]

I would stick with weight, but use noise filtering and comparative score tests. Count score at the end of autonomous, then zero the scale.

I have a feeling frisbees are actually mostly the same weights, so I think weighing can be done.

[Pat Fairbank]

I would have planned for a streamlined human-based solution from the start. Something along the lines of how it was done in 2009, with handheld boxes with tactile buttons for real-time, and manual counting at the end of the match when the goals are emptied.

When was the last time we had an automated solution that reliably handled large quantities of game pieces being scored in parallel? (Answer: it's never.)

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank

I would have planned for a streamlined human-based solution from the start. Something along the lines of how it was done in 2009, with handheld boxes with tactile buttons for real-time, and manual counting at the end of the match when the goals are emptied.

When was the last time we had an automated solution that reliably handled large quantities of game pieces being scored in parallel? (Answer: it's never.)

Yeah, I was just going to point to 2006 as an example where the automated scoring system caused a ton of problems. It's hard to create a flawless system and this is the type of situation where it needs to be flawless. In 2006, I remember there were tons of issues with the scoring when the goals got clogged by the onslaught of balls and they had to implement a human-based system then.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

Yeah, I was just going to point to 2006 as an example where the automated scoring system caused a ton of problems. It's hard to create a flawless system and this is the type of situation where it needs to be flawless. In 2006, I remember there were tons of issues with the scoring when the goals got clogged by the onslaught of balls and they had to implement a human-based system then.

There were two issues in 2006, one was the goal getting clogged and needing the pokey stick to unjam, and the other was inaccurate sensors, especially in the low goal that tried to detect balls in parallel with a camera. They resorted to guys with counters watching each goal. The sensors had a tendency to miscount and the RTS couldn't be trusted at all.

In 2010 and 2012 they used low numbers of balls and single-file scoring to improve the system, although they still had their issues (including the infamous bounce-back DOGMA penalties in 2010).

2009 was human-counted from the start, but was horribly inaccurate because humans just couldn't estimate it as well as they needed to, or count fast enough for the large loads that got dumped in trailers.

Counting discs as they enter the goal is an issue because a) it's very hard to ensure you don't get a double-count and b) discs that don't stay in the goals aren't counted, and a pass-through sensor can't account for that.

At least this year they can recount the discs after the match...

[joelg236]

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank

When was the last time we had an automated solution that reliably handled large quantities of game pieces being scored in parallel? (Answer: it's never.)

That's a good point. Pro sports that have automated scoring only have one ball (eg. hockey, basketball, etc.)

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

I don't even think those sports have auto scoring. It sure take a long time from the score for my TV to update.

[joelg236]

I know for a fact hockey and basketball use sensors and cameras to count.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by joelg236

I know for a fact hockey and basketball use sensors and cameras to count.

They're not automated, though. If something is unsure to the referees in real-time, they go back and look at the tape. Why FIRST doesn't allow the same thing, who knows...

[Leor Buch]

Originally Posted by bduddy

They're not automated, though. If something is unsure to the referees in real-time, they go back and look at the tape. Why FIRST doesn't allow the same thing, who knows...

field reset usually takes longer than the regional expected. imagine having the refs fiddle with a video of the match each time something wasn't clear. this could easily take 5 additional minutes and the time adds up quickly.
I'm not saying that this is fair, but there is no way FIRST could run events this way.

[GaryVoshol]

Where we gonna get the video? The feed that goes to the big screen is often not clear, especially when shrunk down to a laptop-size screen. How often do we hear that you can't see very much when you're watching webcasts?

And more likely than not, the camera will be focusing on something away from the event in question. This isn't the NFL where we have dozens of HD cameras looking at many different angles of play. It would hardly be fair to reverse some ruling based on being lucky that the camera saw it, when it couldn't be seen on the video in the last 4 protests.

[Alexa Stott]

I think there are a lot of strong arguments for having video replays, but, as pointed out in other posts, it's simply not financially feasible at this time.

[Orion.DeYoe]

So it seems like there aren't many simple ideas that are foolproof for real-time scoring. The weight sensors seemed like a good idea but I think the biggest problem is that the discs not only exert force on the bottom of the bin but also on the sides (which leads to the settling problem).
In my opinion they should use through-beam sensors running top to bottom in the goal . They would have the sensors (receiver on top and emitter on bottom or something like that) spaced out evenly in a row right in the opening of the goal with no gaps big enough for a disc to slip by without triggering a sensor. Then they would have a duplicate set spaced 2-3 inches farther inside the goal than the first set.
This would allow them to not only sense the discs presence in the opening of the goal but also it's direction of flight. If the first set is triggered first and the second next then the disc is entering. If the back sensors are triggered first then the disc is bouncing back out. You might actually have to look at the other end of the sensor spike just in case of a disc not going all the way past the sensors. If the first sensor turns off before the second then the disc has gone in whereas if the second sensor turns off first then the disc was leaving the goal.

[Steven Donow]

Similarly to 2011, I think they need to have humans manually putting the score on a touchscreen interface at opposite ends of the field. Yes, there could end up being errors, but I think it'd be a lot better than what we have now...

[Patrick Flynn]

Originally Posted by joelg236

I know for a fact hockey and basketball use sensors and cameras to count.

Hockey does not use an automated system. There is an official sitting behind the goal that turns on a light when he sees the puck go in. And the on ice official will make the call as he sees it.
Basketball scoring also isn't automated, how would a sensor know if it was a 3 or 2 point shot? the ref signals the number of points and a human increments the score.

The only sport that is close to automated, we could say is FIFA. This year they're going to is goal line technology that will alert the official's wrist watch when the ball crosses the line.

I'm not making any excuses for this years FIRST system but hardly any professorial sports are automated.