Propose possible fixes for high goals

[MrBasse]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

To all people saying teams should deal with it:

This isn't a case of a ball hitting the top and bouncing in the goal opening. This is the ball literally going in through the whole, bouncing on the piece protecting the drive team, and bouncing back out of the hole. I don't see how a team should just design around it, it's a field issue. The backing on the ultimate ascent goals were something to take into account, and it was obvious. The balls bouncing out of these goals is something that wasn't so obvious until week 1 events. It may have happened once or twice in week 0, but there was one match at palmetto where the ball went in and then bounced out 3 times in one match.


I'm inclined to believe just some polycarb that is tilted at a slight angle would fix this issue entirely, and shouldn't be expensive.

It's definitely a field issue, however, it is one that a lot of teams didn't notice until now. It sounds like a lot of teams missed a crucial part of the design process. Who's fault is that?

Originally Posted by kstl99

Snip
Also the field drawings did not reflect the bar in the back. To me this is a different challenge than what was presented and should be fixed.
Snip

Been there since day one on the Official Field Drawings...

This isn't really a big deal. In every sporting event there are challenges. They don't stop a baseball game because it is windy, batters just try to keep the ball low to avoid the wind. Same in football, soccer, or any sport played outside...

Adjust your shot, modify your strategy, play the game you were given.

[Jibri Wright]

I think it's totally fair. It's just all part of the design challenge. It probably is hard to change the trajectory of a catapult and do all the math associated with it, but that's one of the reasons why we didn't design a catapult.

[S.P.A.M.er 17]

If nothing is going to be changed about the bar, then things need to change about how cycles are ended. Refs should be able to undo cycles since the ball is literally bouncing out of the goal after it appears to be scored. Maybe have another set of lights on the human barrier station so if the cycle is undone, the human players can't inbound until those lights are lit as well. As a ref, I will not want to cause a field fault due to unscoring balls, but I also want to make sure that the next cycle is started as soon as possible. Honestly, this bar seems more unfair to refs, than to the robots.

[Jibri Wright]

Even if the bar was deemed unfair by the GDC itself, nothing would be done about it, and it's not mainly because of money. The main problem is that in the week one events, the teams who participated had to deal with the bar. Changing that bar is not fair to them. If they had to deal with it, it's more fair that everyone else has to deal with it as well. They had to adjust and so do we, simple as that.

[Nirvash]

Originally Posted by Jibri Wright

Even if the bar was deemed unfair by the GDC itself, nothing would be done about it, and it's not mainly because of money. The main problem is that in the week one events, the teams who participated had to deal with the bar. Changing that bar is not fair to them. If they had to deal with it, it's more fair that everyone else has to deal with it as well. They had to adjust and so do we, simple as that.

I guess FIRST has never changed the field elements throughout the season before.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Jibri Wright

Even if the bar was deemed unfair by the GDC itself, nothing would be done about it, and it's not mainly because of money. The main problem is that in the week one events, the teams who participated had to deal with the bar. Changing that bar is not fair to them. If they had to deal with it, it's more fair that everyone else has to deal with it as well. They had to adjust and so do we, simple as that.

Why would they not change the rules? They've done it before.

[Jibri Wright]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Why would they not change the rules? They've done it before.

It's not a rule, it's a field element.

[mott]

Originally Posted by Jibri Wright

It's not a rule, it's a field element.

FIRST has changed field elements before also... this whole discussion sounds remarkably like the discussion early in 2012 when basketballs wouldn't roll out from under the bridges.

Then, FIRST made a change to the way they attached the polycarb ball ramps to the underside of the bridge assembly (if I remember correctly).

[Thad House]

They've changed the field before too. Remember in 2012 they changed the polycarb under the bridges after balls would get stuck under them, so only certain robots could pick them up. I'm pretty sure this was between week 1 and week 2.

[atucker4072]

Honestly if it becomes a larger issue, more than refs trying to keep score and what have you, they could probably just use cardboard... I don't think it had made that big of an impact YET.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by atucker4072

Honestly if it becomes a larger issue, more than refs trying to keep score and what have you, they could probably just use cardboard... I don't think it had made that big of an impact YET.

Is having to replay a match a big impact? A match in eliminations?

[Woolly]

Maybe instead of a metal bars it should be chain (of a sturdier variety than 2013 chain) with pool noodle around it.

[Qbot2640]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Is having to replay a match a big impact? A match in eliminations?

Why would this result in a match being replayed? Currently, if the ball bounces back out it is not a goal. It is quite clear. - if a referee or other official interpreted a "bounce out" as a reason to replay a game, then they have not followed the current rule.

This bounce potential may negatively impact my team's shot - but that doesn't change the fact that it would still be more unfair to modify now than to continue to work as is...We may modify our approach and make it a non-issue, but that is why we don't register for week one events!

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by Qbot2640

This bounce potential may negatively impact my team's shot - but that doesn't change the fact that it would still be more unfair to modify now than to continue to work as is...We may modify our approach and make it a non-issue, but that is why we don't register for week one events!

In 2012, they changed the field elements because balls were getting stuck under bridges. That change was made after week 1 events. You could've told teams to design around it then, but FIRST fixed the field. FIRST also added chains in the goals after week 0 in 2013. The field is not some divine, fixed entity. It can change, and should be changed.

[MrBasse]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

... It can change, and should be changed.

Why?

What about it isn't what was provided when the game was released? In 2013 adding the cord to tie the chains together was done, but was it needed? In 2012 the polycarbonate was changed, but was it needed? In both cases I'd say no, but lots of teams would argue. In 2012, if a ball went under the bridge all you had to do was drop the opposite side. In 2013, if your disc bounced out you could not throw the thing as fast as physically possible. I don't understand why teams are upset about this. It seems to me that everyone is a little grumpy because they spent six weeks on a project and it doesn't work as well as they wanted it to. But, the same problem happens in real life too...