Ball bouncing out of the high Goal

[Woolly]

It's part of the game, though it is annoying when it happens.
https://youtu.be/qjoAI0x324I?t=46s
https://youtu.be/17JDcQaSIWw?t=26s

[Jim Schaddelee]

I think FIRST should fix the high goal. They fixed the low bar because the field did not meet the intent of the games design. The fabric didn't keep the balls out of the court yard while still allowing robots to pass through. The intent of the chains is to stop the balls after being shot into the high goals. If the balls goes in one opening and out of another this seem to be a field design issue. I think logic dictates the purpose of the chains is to stop the balls. How hard could it be to add a few more chains or at minimum make sure the chains are not twisted before the match.


jim

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by Jim Schaddelee

I think FIRST should fix the high goal. They fixed the low bar because the field did not meet the intent of the games design. The fabric didn't keep the balls out of the court yard while still allowing robots to pass through.

That wasn't the problem. The original fabric literally didn't survive the rigors of the game.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Jim Schaddelee

The intent of the chains is to stop the balls after being shot into the high goals.
jim

I believe your statement here is incorrect (or just an assumption)

Please show where the GDC has expressly stated that the intent of the chains is to stop the balls after being shot into the high goal.

It is my belief (I have no proof) that the intent was to DAMPEN the shot, and that is what the chains do.

[BoilerMentor]

Originally Posted by CalTran

That wasn't the problem. The original fabric literally didn't survive the rigors of the game.

Or is it that teams didn't appropriately design and test to avoid breaking the game rules by damaging a field element? Our team tested with a low bar curtain weighted with nearly twice what the spec was to ensure we wouldn't be accused of damaging the field.

I know a number of teams have been warned about crossing the rock wall, because they're snapping of pins when they do. Shouldn't the same have happened to teams damaging the low bar curtain? I think if anything the assertion that FIRST should change the goal to accommodate the laser-rocket-boulder-launchers is probably a little excessive.

I'd venture 1747 is in the top 10% in terms of boulder energy and we very irregularly miss shots because the ball bounces back out. Let's play the game we got the best we can and understand these are all considerations in the design process.

[Kevin Leonard]

I just wish these balls would act predictably. But that's not FIRST's problem, that's a physics problem. FIRST even went out of their way this year to try to find a ball with a fairly consistent makeup. The way I see it, the chains are a fairly good solution to this problem that work most of the time, and while balls bouncing out can be annoying, it's just an unfortunate part of the game that can be, much of the time, mitigated.

[Chris is me]

I just wish that FIRST would include drawings for the chains in both the full and low cost field diagrams.

Yes, the chains are a part of the game teams have to deal with, but if we're going to use that logic, then the low cost fields need to include them. Chains don't cost a lot!

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I believe your statement here is incorrect (or just an assumption)

Please show where the GDC has expressly stated that the intent of the chains is to stop the balls after being shot into the high goal.

It is my belief (I have no proof) that the intent was to DAMPEN the shot, and that is what the chains do.

Which in itself brings up an question I will most likely never know the answer to.
If you have the choice between dampening a shot so it lands in roughly the same place, stopping a shot, or deflecting a shot. Which one is the most cost efficient?

[AlexanderTheOK]

The fundamental issue here is that the real field acts differently from what teams may have prototyped with. I imagine if you look back on games with simpler and cheaper field elements you will see less of this. This game specifically is much harder to make an adequate test environment for.

The difference between the fabric and this issue however is the frequency with which it happened. Evidently teams COULD have tested more rigorously, but FIRST could have also foreseen the issue through their own testing?

When an issue like this happens with high frequency, I feel the conclusion should be that FIRST itself did not account for this, and should have either communicated to teams better regarding prototyping for the low bar, or designed it in such a way that teams don't see issues on the field that they wouldn't see while practicing (ie. damage to the low bar due to extended use.)

When it happens with lower frequency (like the rejection issue) it can be reasoned that other teams DID foresee this issue, leading me to believe that FIRST did a better job of dealing with the issue before kickoff. This obviously doesn't mean they did a perfect job, but it seems right on the line of reasonable here.

So the core question regarding balls bouncing out is: Did FIRST communicate the requirements regarding scoring and the interaction of the balls with the goal adequately.

As this is a subjective metric, (and different individuals may have different definitions of "adequately") I don't believe we can say this question has an answer unless there is near unanimous agreement among the community. (as there was with the fabric)

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

Which in itself brings up an question I will most likely never know the answer to.
If you have the choice between dampening a shot so it lands in roughly the same place, stopping a shot, or deflecting a shot. Which one is the most cost efficient?

Which is why I posted the way I did.

By dampening rather than stopping the shot, it effectively limits the energy (speed) in the shot.

JMHO

[Peyton Yeung]

It would have been interesting if FIRST had lined the inside of the high goal with memory foam like 2010.

[Jim Schaddelee]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I believe your statement here is incorrect (or just an assumption)

Please show where the GDC has expressly stated that the intent of the chains is to stop the balls after being shot into the high goal.

It is my belief (I have no proof) that the intent was to DAMPEN the shot, and that is what the chains do.

I agree with you , call it Stopping ( probably a bad choice of words) or " dampen " many shots are going through one side and out the other. At West Michigan we put the boulder in the tower 10 times in one match , three times the chains did not dampen the shots. 30% failure rate is poor design. I think the chains are getting tangled at times because they need to be longer. The point is if the GDC wanted us to finesse the boulders into the tower why have chains at all. Saying that,I feel it up to the teams to adapt. Check before the match to see if the chains are twisted, change the angle of your shot or take a little power out of the shooter.

[mac]

My Jagbots 4638 had a shot at Chesapeake Champs. Went in left side then out the right side. High goal. That should be ten points not zero points. Right guys? Amen

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by mac

My Jagbots 4638 had a shot at Chesapeake Champs. Went in left side then out the right side. High goal. That should be ten points not zero points. Right guys? Amen

If a basketball rolls around the rim and jumps back out, does that count? Of course not.

The boulder has to stay in the goal to count for points, and exit through the corral.

[lkg9999]

The issue with the tower chains was dramatically highlighted during yesterday's semi-finals at New England champs. A high-goal shot resulted in one of the boulders getting hung up in the chains, and a subsequent shot knocked the wedged boulder back out of the tower. In this case, the refs called a field error, stopped the match and worked on the chains before restarting the match.

This was right after high drama where a boulder had not been accurately counted during a previous match, transferring the win to the other alliance. The now-losing alliance was able to effectively contest that the uncounted boulder was a field error and the match should be replayed.

Who needs daytime soaps when one can watch FRC matches?