YMTC: Is it goaltending?

[Steve W]

As mentioned before, you cannot be penalized for stopping a ball from going into your own goal. The fact that you don't get points is penalty enough. If you are not trying to score why would you be throwing the ball towards the goal. The question still stands, which robot is deemed to have the ball as an extension of their robot? Both cannot as then they would become 1 robot not 2. Again I stress that I am not questioning the rules, just interested.

[DougHogg]

Originally Posted by dlavery

This one is simple. The rules and the situation are clear and straightforward.

Redabot is in contact with the 2X ball. For the duration of that contact, the ball is considered part of Redabot. The blue alliance throws balls towards their mobile goal. The balls are deflected and prevented from entering the goal by the 2X ball (which is currently considered part of Redabot). Under Rule G20, this is clearly goaltending. Since this happens six times before the red alliance thinks enough to let go of the 2X ball or move the goal out of range, they will be penalized for each occurrence.
...
-dave

4.3.1 Definitions
GOALTENDING – A ROBOT cannot interfere with a SMALL ball on its downward flight toward a goal or within a goal.

<G20> ROBOTS cannot GOAL TEND either the Mobile or Stationary Goals. If a ROBOT GOALTENDs or de-SCORES any SMALL ball, the referee will throw a red/green or blue/green 10-point penalty flag for each occurrence.

<G21> In the case of goal tending and assisting, while the ROBOT is manipulating a large ball, it is considered an extension of the ROBOT.

I have a different viewpoint on this. Per G21, the ball is only considered an extension of the robot IN THE CASE of goal tending.

Since the blue team is attempting to retrieve the yellow ball to cap a goal, they aren't goal tending, so the yellow ball is not an extension of the robot.

It would be nice if we could just have things be black and white, but sometimes they aren't, and this is one of those cases. Part of the game is retrieving yellow balls from mobile goals. That isn't goal tending. Goal tending is blocking balls headed for a goal. Are we now supposed to decide not to retrieve yellow balls anymore so as not to "violate" a goal-tending rule? No, because that isn't the rule. And if someone is making that the rule in an effort to make things straightforward and "non lawyer-like", then in my opinion, they are making a mistake in this case. We have to protect the right of teams to legally go after the yellow balls when they are at rest on a mobile goal, as that IS part of the game. To suddenly decide that picking up a yellow ball is a violation is to change the intent of the game. Fact is, we aren't playing basketball, so basketball rules shouldn't be imported without a lot of thought as to when and where they should and shouldn't apply to our game.

[MikeDubreuil]

Some definitions from the Game rules...
Goaltending:
A ROBOT cannot interfere with a SMALL ball on its downward flight toward a goal or within a goal.
Robot:
Anything (which has passed inspection) that a team places on the field prior to the start of a match.

The goaltending rule:
<G20> ROBOTS cannot GOAL TEND either the Mobile or Stationary Goals. If a ROBOT GOALTENDs or de-SCORES any SMALL ball, the referee will throw a red/green or blue/green 10-point penalty flag for each occurrence.

I don't understand how anyone can interpret the rules to mean that only 1 robot can be called for goaltending at a time. I also don't see where it says that a robot can not be flagged for goaltending if they are in front of their own stationary or mobile goal.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

No, it's not goal tending. Although Dave says, "toward" the goal, I'm sure he means "if the robot wasn't there would the ball have a reasonable chance of scoring in the goal." In your illustration, the ball would not have a reasonable chance of going into the goal and would therefore not be goal tending. Call the Harlem Globe Trotters, we found a new trick shooter

I'm going to retract my interpretation of what Dave said. After re-reading the post I realize he said the referees do not have to make the estimation as to whether the ball would have gone in.

However, I still don't feel this would have been called goaltending. Although, I don't have a real good reason why, other than my interpretation of Dave and the rules.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Although judging by this thread I'm not sure if I should bet on what Dave's intentions were

Which is exactly why "intent" should not be a major factor in the referees decisions during the game. If you don't know the intent of the rule-writer, then all you have to go on is the words of the rule itself. If you don't know the intent of the teams, then all you have to go on is their set of observable actions.

Besides, how would you ever know what my "intent" was anyway, either in wording of the rules, or in this discussion (Warning: one of my favorite classes in high school was "Debating" - I used to love to take the side that was contrary to my personal beliefs, just to see if I could "put myself in the other person's shoes," understand their viewpoint, and argue it successfully)? For all you know, Jonathan Lall and I could be in complete agreement on every point, and just having fun in a good debate.

But there is one other note. Several folks have compared the jobs of the FIRST referees with other sports referees. But there is at least one major distinction that you have to keep in mind, which limits the applicability of this reasoning. Major sports referees receive considerable training and usually have years of experience with the game before they start calling high-level (particularly college- and professional-level) games. With that experience, they can make reasonable estimations of whether a team is acting within the spirit of the game or not.

But the vast majority of FIRST referees are somewhat similar to the amateur referee who gets pulled in once a season to call a little league baseball game. Except that during the off-season, all the rules for the game have been completely re-written, and the team is now playing soccer instead, and the referee has one day to learn all the new rules. In this situation, the referees have no extensive experience base with the game, and only a very quick familiarity with the rules. The nuances of the game play and subtleties of strategy are difficult to determine and differentiation between valid tactics and poor sportsmanship is not always obvious.

For that reason the once-a-year little league-turned-soccer referees and the FIRST referees must both rely on the only solid information they have - the rules. If FIRST ever gets to the point where they can have paid referees who can devote three months learning all the intricacies of the game and observe thousands of matches to learn all the subtleties before calling their first match, then things will be different. But until then, as long as we are relying on (very good and enthusiastic) amateur referees, we have to be realistic about what we are asking them to do.

This is my position, and I am sticking to it. Or then again, I could just be enjoying a good debate!

-dave

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by DougHogg

I have a different viewpoint on this. Per G21, the ball is only considered an extension of the robot IN THE CASE of goal tending.

Since the blue team is attempting to retrieve the yellow ball to cap a goal, they aren't goal tending, so the yellow ball is not an extension of the robot.

Yes, but since goaltending is the act of impeding a balls downward flight toward a goal... and a 2x is considered part of the robot in the case of goaltending... then once you grab and have hold of that 2x ball, if you're still in the way of someone's shot, you can get called for goaltending. It doesn't matter what the intention was.

Yes they may be retrieving a 2x ball from the goal, but you gotta do it quick. That's just part of the game. Most times I see the mobile goal being uncapped before it's been moved, and I haven't seen too many uncappings of the stny goal, but the ones I have seen, it's right at the end of the match... So far, I haven't really seen goaltending a big issue anyways, I think a lot of strategies haven't called for it.... or else everyone's afraid of getting called for it, so they play their own offense.

[DougHogg]

Originally Posted by AmyPrib

Yes, but since goaltending is the act of impeding a balls downward flight toward a goal... and a 2x is considered part of the robot in the case of goaltending... then once you grab and have hold of that 2x ball, if you're still in the way of someone's shot, you can get called for goaltending. It doesn't matter what the intention was.

Yes they may be retrieving a 2x ball from the goal, but you gotta do it quick. That's just part of the game. Most times I see the mobile goal being uncapped before it's been moved, and I haven't seen too many uncappings of the stny goal, but the ones I have seen, it's right at the end of the match... So far, I haven't really seen goaltending a big issue anyways, I think a lot of strategies haven't called for it.... or else everyone's afraid of getting called for it, so they play their own offense.

I do understand that. Actually I am not talking about intention at this point. If the yellow ball is on red's mobile goal, then red can't score in that goal. If blue grabs the yellow ball to remove it, it is clear that they are not goal tending as the goal was blocked. In basketball, you have to DO something to PREVENT a ball from going in to be called for goaltending. In this case, the blue team is actually making it possible for a ball to go in. That clearly is not goal tending, since their action is one of making it possible to score and not one of making it impossible to score.

True, someone could decide that that action is goal tending. Well now we are talking about the definition of goal tending, but since it comes from basketball, it sure isn't defined as removing a ball so that someone can score.

Dave makes a good point about the fact that our referees have very limited experience. I think in this case that could be handled by telling them that if the ball is on a goal and a team goes to remove it, it isn't goal tending. If a team goes to put a yellow ball on their opponent's goal, it is goal tending if a ball strikes the yellow ball. I think that everyone could live with that interpretation, and I doubt if it would be a hard rule for the referees to deal with.

However, as you say, it hasn't been a big issue anyway, so we will all survive whatever the interpretation of the rule. My only grip is that I would like to see teams validated for picking up the mobile-goal yellow balls as per the kickoff instead of getting a penalty flag, which to me has a stigma of "you did a no-no". It's a little like saying, "We are going to reward you for doing such-and-such" and then saying, "You were bad for doing such-and-such". In other words, it's inconsistent with the game as presented. The game as presented in the kickoff to me is the "Constitution" of the game, and that should be held up as the model to follow, with subsequent rules aligning with it. Otherwise, we get teams building robots and then finding that their robot isn't valid for the game as it came to be interpreted later.

I guess that's it. I just don't want the game changed from the way it was presented in the kickoff. And to me, ruling that picking up a yellow ball is goal tending IS a change from what we were told to do to win.

[KenWittlief]

you can score balls into a capped goal - Ive seen lots of balls go into a goal between the poles

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by DougHogg

In other words, it's inconsistent with the game as presented. The game as presented in the kickoff to me is the "Constitution" of the game, and that should be held up as the model to follow, with subsequent rules aligning with it.

Just a quick side-note. Try not to put TOO MUCH emphasis on the game trial run that is shown during the kick-off presentations. You have to recognize one very important fact: at the time that the game is presented, it has never been played even once under actual competitive conditions. The game design team is comprised of a very small number of people. They design the game and run through dozens of test scenarios and trial runs. They develop and test (and eliminate) many game strategies and options. But the reality is that each of their test runs are conducted under controlled conditions that may not accurately reflect what can happen during an actual competition.

The game design team does think of most of the options, problems, loopholes, and quirks of each game. However, given the realities of the schedule and process, they are never going to find all of them. And given that their combined brain power (as impressive as it is ) can never equal the combined brain power of the 20,000 FIRST participants that analyze, scrutinize, dissect, and reflect upon the game when it is unveiled at the kick-off, the teams are always going to find a few things that the game designers missed. Thus, every year there are always a few "Doh!!!" moments for the game designers when the teams see something the designers missed, and updates have to be issued to correct the oversights.

So while the idea that the game presented at the kick-off is perfect and everyone should adhere to that model is ideal, the reality is that we know it will need to be tweaked as things are discovered after the game is actually played "for real." Obviously, a lot of effort is put into minimizing the tweaking, but it will still happen. With that in mind, I would suggest that you might look at the game demos during the kick-off presentations as "very strong suggestions" rather than "bullet-proof cast-in-concrete" definitions of how the game should work.

-dave

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Note that the referee does not have to estimate whether the ball has a high probability of going in the goal, or if it is going to hit the goal, or if it would fly straight in without touching the posts. Under the instructions that the referees are given (reference: notes from weekly telecon between Benje Ambrogi and regional head referees), all they have to do is decide if the ball - if the flight path were uninterrupted by the goaltending robot - COULD have hit the goal. If that is the case, and the flight path was interrupted by the opposing robot (including a 2X ball being held by the robot), then the goaltending rules apply.

Dave, perhaps one of the reasons that there is so much confusion is because of these Q/A exchanges.

ID: 99 Section: 4.4.1 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/13/2004
Q: While trying to put a 2X ball on opponent’s goal, will this be considered goal tending ?
A: Yes, if it interferes with a thrown ball with the potential to go in the goal (referee's judgement). See the definition of GOAL TENDING.

ID: 94 Section: 4.4.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/13/2004
Q: If a team is attempting to uncap a goal and the opposing alliance throws a small ball at the goal at the same moment and it bounces off the large ball while the robot was still holding it, would that team be considered to be goal-tending?
A: Yes, you are goal tending if the goal you are attempting to cap or uncap is one of your opponents goals and the large ball interferes with a thrown ball with the potential to go in the goal (referee's judgement). See the definition of GOAL TENDING.

(emphasis added)

Dave,

So, while the rules as written do match Benje's (and your) interpretation, the interpretation given by whoever answered those questions has the potential to cause a lot of misunderstanding.



Doug,

The answer to your issue depends on whether the balls have to have the potential to go into the goal, or whether they merely have to be thrown "toward" the goal. However, Answer 94 clearly states that you can be called for goaltending when uncapping.

See you at nationals.

[DougHogg]

Thank you Ken, Dave and Joe for your responses.

They make sense. (I hadn't checked the Q and A board on this subject.)

I would still like to see the rule changed to "no goal tending if uncapping". However I will have to live with FIRST's interpretation. Hopefully there won't be any important matches decided by a team getting penalized when uncapping and the opponent throwing balls at them. To me, that is getting into the "lawyer zone": winning by intentionally drawing fouls where there was essentially no real chance of scoring and a nice stationary goal was wide open and closer.

(By the way, we get our capping ball in autonomous, so I'm not just saying this to help our team win.)

See you all on Thursday. It's going to be awesome. :-)

[KenWittlief]

Thing I cant figure out in this whole thread is:

why would you uncap your OPPONENTS goal for them in the first place?

all you are doing is helping them score points

there are three 2x balls on the field - ive yet to see a match where more than one was touched by a bot.

[Zzyzx]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

there are three 2x balls on the field - ive yet to see a match where more than one was touched by a bot.

During our teams matches in the PNW regional, there were many times when we would choose the closest 2x ball to try to cap the big goal, and somtimes, we would cap a small and the large goal. there have been many times were we have used the ball from our opponents mobile goal to cap our own goals, making this scinerio very real for us. It is important for us to uncap opponents goals because we have a mechanism to grab goals, and moving their goal to our side usually causes that mobile goal to go unused during that match.

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Thing I cant figure out in this whole thread is:

why would you uncap your OPPONENTS goal for them in the first place?

all you are doing is helping them score points

there are three 2x balls on the field - ive yet to see a match where more than one was touched by a bot.

You need to watch more matches then! There are many bots than can manipulate more than one 2x ball, or even use one, and go for another. Since a lot of strategies call for controlling the 2x balls, you go for whichever is closest to you, and maybe your partner can do the same. Not evenone has the capability to grab or push goals effectively to their own side, so you're not necessarily helping them score any points in the mobile goal. Sometimes the mobile goal never moves - it hasn't seemed to be an integral part of the game yet. I think most would gladly take control of the 2x ball to cap their own full goal even if it lets the opponent score a few balls in their mobile goal.