THE MOST ANTICIPATED ANSWER THIS SEASON!!!!!!

[JChavis]

Originally Posted by O'Sancheski

Why do you say that throwing the balls over the alliance wall is cheating?

My thoughts on the GDC making that decision were PRETTY ambivalent....

My fun part of my brain said:

"YESS, humans can SCORE, more points for US!!!!"

My moral part of my brain said:

"Wouldn't this be degrading the amazing spirit and intention of FIRST, where people could build ROBOTS to do people's work, thus learning a technology and engineering mentality students can use in the future to assist the human race?"

I know it is very exciting to win, but what would teams learn if people in the future would have to create robots that would require human assistance?

Oh, wait, I might have just made another point there....

[BrendanB]

I'm not going to be surprised if we don't see a bounce shot into a low goal this season. Technically the 2006 low goals were harder to hit because you had to get the ball to go the length of the field and then roll up the ramp. If you threw too hard it would bounce of the top of the goal, too soft and it wouldn't have enough to roll up the ramp.

Never say never!

[RoboTigers1796]

How will balls thrown after or right at the end of a match be handled? Scores aren't calculated until 5 seconds after the end of match so there's a possibility of a thrown ball sneaking in to the final score
Robots get disabled at the very second of the end of a match... inbounders don't.

Obviously it appears it won't have much effect considering most agree not many balls will be scored, but still. It only takes one match for this to happen and it decide a match for it to matter.
Penalty for throwing balls onto the field after the end of match buzzer? Tough judgement call.
I don't know, what do you guys think?

[Duncan Macdonald]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

How about

"teams will rarely score with their HP in the last 30 sec so it doesn't matter"

Look how many HP's scored in 2006 and that was a bigger target and it wasn't parallel to the floor...

It was also a penalty.

Originally Posted by 2006 Rules

<G38> Entering balls onto the field - Only the HUMAN PLAYERs may enter a ball onto the field, either by
attempting to throw it to a ROBOT, attempting to throw it in a corner goal, or throwing it onto the field
for pickup by a ROBOT. <snip>.
Violations of this rule will result in a 5-point penalty per ball entered onto the field

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by JChavis

My thoughts on the GDC making that decision were PRETTY ambivalent....

My fun part of my brain said:

"YESS, humans can SCORE, more points for US!!!!"

My moral part of my brain said:

"Wouldn't this be degrading the amazing spirit and intention of FIRST, where people could build ROBOTS to do people's work, thus learning a technology and engineering mentality students can use in the future to assist the human race?"

I know it is very exciting to win, but what would teams learn if people in the future would have to create robots that would require human assistance?

Oh, wait, I might have just made another point there....

This Q&A answer wasn't some magical surprise, it was explicitly allowed under rule G32 since Kickoff.

[Tyler Olds]

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

It was also a penalty.

Not in the corner goal. I don't recall any human player scoring in the top goal in 2006. Scoring in the corner wasn't rare, but uncommon to see.

By the way: I love how skewed the survey question is...... You could just say yes or no to not show as much survey bias.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Tyler Olds

Not in the corner goal. I don't recall anybody scoring in the top goal in 2006. Scoring in the corner wasn't rare, but uncommon to see.

Tyler you need to learn to read they give the rule right after they say "it was also a penalty"

But it being a penalty in 2006 was really here nor there as my point is still valid, HPs aren't going to score that often if at all.

[JChavis]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

This Q&A answer wasn't some magical surprise, it was explicitly allowed under rule G32 since Kickoff.

G32 didn't clear up the question posted on the Q&A. It might have been true that someone would question being able to do a robots work....

[jdunston94]

Originally Posted by mathking

I am also amending my list to include soccer goal keepers. Who actually practice throwing (rather than shooting) a round ball a long distance. Mechanically, you will want a release point close to or above the wall. Which means that a tall basketball player will probably have an advantage.

I used to play keeper... actuallly now that you mention it and i think back, it would be pretty easy to be deadly with accuracy...

[Matt H.]

I get the feeling there aren't many basketball fans among us. 57ft is a shot from 10ft behind the half court line. When NBA players make shots like that they tend to miss.

Recruiting a basketball player might not be a great idea either. A friend of mine plays for my college's women's team. When we were shooting together she missed quite a few shots she would normally make. Using a men's ball with slightly different weight characteristics threw off her shot significantly. Now imagine the effect of switching to poof balls.

I'd be surprised if human player shots decide more than one game this season.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by JChavis

My moral part of my brain said:

"Wouldn't this be degrading the amazing spirit and intention of FIRST, where people could build ROBOTS to do people's work, thus learning a technology and engineering mentality students can use in the future to assist the human race?"

I know it is very exciting to win, but what would teams learn if people in the future would have to create robots that would require human assistance?

You weren't around for 2004, so pardon me while I drag this thread off track for a post or so. Back in 2004, robots could NOT score small balls, each worth 5 points (10 points if you were able to snag one of those four special 10-point balls before some speed demon got to them and knocked them off their pedestals autonomously), into any of the 4 goals. It wasn't that you couldn't build a robot to do it, it was that there was something like a 10-point penalty per ball. The Human Player had to make every single point inside those goals, by taking balls fed to them by the robots and throwing them into the goal. The robots could then double it by placing a large ball on top of the goal, or go for 50 points by hanging on the bar, or both.

Now, to really address what you're saying: I'm not entirely certain that you understand the spirit and intention of FIRST. The full name of FIRST is "United States Foundation for Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology". (They've sort of ignored the "United States Foundation" part for many years now, but it is still part of the full legal name, as far as I know.) That name gives what the intent of the organization is: inspire and recognize science and technology. Nowhere in any FIRST mission or vision statement is "learning" mentioned. Does it happen? You bet it does. But it's a byproduct of the inspiration. What about building? That's in there, I'll give you that. Building skills, not robots!

FRC is a robotics competition. FIRST is not a robotics competition. FIRST chooses to use robots as a vehicle to accomplish the inspiration. To that end, they have 4 robotics competitions at different levels. If they thought that birdhouses, factory trips, or building a better mousetrap was the best way to accomplish their mission, they'd be doing that instead. The robots are highly effective at the mission, though, so they have stayed the primary vehicle FIRST uses.

I could go on, but I think that at this point if anything is unclear, a PM would work better.

P.S.: A few more human-robot interaction games of the past: In 2003, the HPs were on the field before the robots ran autonomous. In the '90s, HPs loaded the robots directly--there was at least one DQ for the HP "grabbing the robot" (though there is some doubt as to whether that actually happened). In 2005, humans ran out to load the robots, or the robots could grab from an autoloader. In 2007, humans could score on the rack in the middle of the field. I could add in that humans have been working with the robots since 1992, controlling them... but that takes it away from the HP and into the driver.

[Teched3]

IMHO, none of those made shots will be a game changer. What will be a game changer is what the GDC decides to do at Champioship with the point values related to ramp balancing. Any change from what was stated in the original point values will affect some teams positively, and others negatively, compared to their performance at the Regionals.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Teched3

IMHO, none of those made shots will be a game changer.

I expect at least one match will be decided by such a Hail Mary shot. The final moon rock scored by a person in the last few seconds of the final match of the 2009 Boilermaker Regional was a game changer.