Goaltending...as a strategy?

[ngreen]

I know this will seem against the "spirit of the rule". But for everyball that gets goaltended, the opponent get twice the points of that ball. In a game where the only certainty is you want to win and you want your opponent to score as many as possible in a losing effort goaltending may well be used to give more points to an opponent. Goaltending not only doubles the point the oppenent gets making it useful to give points to a team with robotic problems but it gets rid of having only a limited amount of space in a goal in which to score.

On the other side, the refs only have so many green flags. I believe FIRST would dq a team for persistent goaltending (they would have to after running out of green flags.) So I would definitely not look at this for a long term strategy.

But in a short term look, if you can goaltend five times before being dqed, that could add up to 50 to 100 points for your opponent. It would allow you to more quickly give points to the opponent in the case of a blowout.

Thoughts??

[pauluffel]

Yes, that does seem like a way to gain points for your opponent, but the rules do not say "your opponent will gain points if you goaltend" but rather, "robots cannot goaltend, and you'll be penalized according by the increase of your opponents score." This year's rules are much more vague in that goaltended with the goal of increasing your opponents score would be effective, though not graciously professional.

You may be increasing their score, but you are still preventing them from scoring. I like competition because it's seeing how good you can do, not how high a score you can obtain through the conniving ways of your opponent.

[KenWittlief]

wouldnt it be easier to push the porta-goal next to their human player, and feed them balls too?

[ngreen]

possibly, but not likely as quick. I'm not suggesting or endorsing this as a strategy but merely offering it as a solution to a problem. Last year, we encountered a least a match where one or both opposing robots failed to work successfully. Feeding balls to the opposing human players along with capping for them are definetly a solution to this problem, and in this case is probably the accepted form. I was exploring other ways to "score for the opponent." Although it is not right by the rules of the game it is a solution to the problem I speak of.

I'll explain in the terms of basketball. Fouling is not really accepted in basketball. Players get 5 fouls before they have to sit down and a team can give 6 fouls in a half before the other team get to shoot free throws. Before 6 fouls, the opposing team only gets the ball out of bounds. Many times teams in the lead with less than 6 fouls in the half will take advantage of this in the final minute of the game. By fouling they take time off the clock and only give the opposing team the ball out of bounds. They can repeat fouling until they get to six to avoid letting the other team shoot free throws. The still run the risk of accidentally fouling the other team and allowing to shoot to possibly win the game.

With robotics, if they give a specified number of goaltending flags before disqualification it is very similiar to the basketball situation, but the team that goaltends runs the risk of dqing from an accidental goaltend. I don't like it but the rules make it part of this game. Some teams might just run that risk to score some extra points.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

Originally Posted by ngreen

With robotics, if they give a specified number of goaltending flags before disqualification it is very similiar to the basketball situation, but the team that goaltends runs the risk of dqing from an accidental goaltend. I don't like it but the rules make it part of this game. Some teams might just run that risk to score some extra points.

In basketball, you can goaltend all you want. The other team will get the points. Why would you get disqualified for something that is already "hurting" you? I'd be willing to bet that this strategy will be a big part of qualifying...

[HolyMasamune]

though i understand the basketball analogy, i still don't think FIRST should allow people to goaltend in order to get more points. In basketball, the goal of every team is to win a championship, thus fouling is a simple measure they take to get to the finish. However in robotics, the most important thing is not winning; it is gracious professionalism. even if it is a great strategy, the FIRST volunteers and sponsors do not want to see a cooperative game end up like this.

[Wetzel]

Or you can goaltend for your opponate. If you are way ahead, this would increase their score. IE, adding points to the game that otherwise didn't exist.


Wetzel

[tkwetzel]

Even though points are awarded, goaltending is not allowed per rule G20.

[dlavery]

Wow, you guys have done it! And it took you less than four hours! By figuring out a loophole in the rules, you have found a way to violate the obvious intent of the rules, break the spirit of the game, and potentially bring all the collusion arguments from last year back into the fray.

(haven't figured it out yet? Think about this: "ohh, we can give our downtroden opponents 50 points by intentionally goaltending 10 times, and raise their score" "hey, they can do the same for us" "so wouldn't that raise BOTH our scores?" ... the rest of the discussion is obvious)

The goaltending PENALTY is called a PENALTY for a reason! Rule G-20 is pretty clear - goaltending is a bad thing. The intent of the rule is unmistakable.

PLEASE remember what was said during the kick-off. A very significant effort went into creating a minimal set of rules this year, and get away from the encyclopedic tome full of exceptions, fine print, and legalese that they had become. This was done to make the rules easier to understand, simpler, and better for everyone. But along with that comes some additional responsibility on your part. That responsibility requires that you make a resonable effort to understand the intent of the rules, and abide by that intent.

Yes, you can probably find and exploit this and other loopholes in the rules. But when you do, your entire team better be involved in the discussion about it. Everyone must be comfortable with the example that they are setting, and the standards of behavior that they have chosen. Because EVERYONE on the team will likely be labelled with certain derogatory terms by all the other teams that chose to abide by the rules.

Lawyers find loopholes. Engineers find solutions. For which would you rather be known?

-dave

[mtaman02]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Wow, you guys have done it! And it took you less than four hours! By figuring out a loophole in the rules, you have found a way to violate the obvious intent of the rules, break the spirit of the game, and potentially bring all the collusion arguments from last year back into the fray.

(haven't figured it out yet? Think about this: "ohh, we can give our downtroden opponents 50 points by intentionally goaltending 10 times, and raise their score" "hey, they can do the same for us" "so wouldn't that raise BOTH our scores?" ... the rest of the discussion is obvious)

The goaltending PENALTY is called a PENALTY for a reason! Rule G-20 is pretty clear - goaltending is a bad thing. The intent of the rule is unmistakable.

PLEASE remember what was said during the kick-off. A very significant effort went into creating a minimal set of rules this year, and get away from the encyclopedic tome full of exceptions, fine print, and legalese that they had become. This was done to make the rules easier to understand, simpler, and better for everyone. But along with that comes some additional responsibility on your part. That responsibility requires that you make a resonable effort to understand the intent of the rules, and abide by that intent.

Yes, you can probably find and exploit this and other loopholes in the rules. But when you do, your entire team better be involved in the discussion about it. Everyone must be comfortable with the example that they are setting, and the standards of behavior that they have chosen. Because EVERYONE on the team will likely be labelled with certain derogatory terms by all the other teams that chose to abide by the rules.

Lawyers find loopholes. Engineers find solutions. For which would you rather be known?

-dave

well said. i remember we had many discussions about this last yr on how to try and give the opponents high points so that you can better your rank and having your opponents keep a high score.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Lawyers find loopholes. Engineers find solutions. For which would you rather be known?

Engineers tend to find creative and alternative solutions to problems. I am down in the rankings and I am currently way ahead in the match...I don't have access to their mobile goal and my human player can't reach their stationary goal. My robot can't score small balls. If they shoot while I am hovering above their goal with the big ball ready to cap it, I can up their score but limit it as well. It sounds like a creative solution to me.

But...I do see your point about it getting out of hand and leading to collusion. So from that aspect, yes, it is a very bad idea and should not be done. But obviosly many people had this thought and to be honest, it wasn't too hard to come up with.

Previous to your post, my signature was "I live in the loophole!" In hindsight, it could be taken the wrong way, but it sounds much better than "I live in a place where thinking differently about rules can lead to many more possibilities!"

-Kev

[westy67]

Very well spoken Dave. And Thank You.

Team 79
Engineer's Rock

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by dlavery

...break the spirit of the game, and potentially bring all the collusion arguments from last year back into the fray.
-dave

AMEN Dave. The first thing I thought of here was the collusion problem from last year. Stop and examine the obvious results of a post before posting. In the end, you are only likely to give more information to those who are likely to break the spirit of the rules anyway.

I can understand not liking the rule and it's interpretation, but let's look at the bigger picture. Build the machine and play the game the way it is meant to be played.

Here's a non-scientific formula for you:
Lots of goaltending flags = terrible game to watch AND play = bad for FIRST

[ngreen]

Thanks dave for this clarification.

I saw there was controversy in this topic so it needed to be discussed. Like I've said, I had no desire to help create a machine to break the intent of the rules. Being brought up in a gifted situation that put some emphasis on looking for lawyerisms has been bad for me, especially since I'm going into engineering.

I figured it was a good idea to create some controversy and get a strong opinion against this strategy early instead of having the competition feel cheapened when a team uses this during the game.