FIRST releases Team Update #18

[Aidan F. Browne]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss reaction changes made to Triple Play by FIRST in Team Update #18: http://www2.usfirst.org/2005comp/Upd..._Update_18.pdf

Considering all the emotion behind these issues that has been displayed in various threads over the past few days, please keep the discussion to the update and its affect on Triple Play, without rehashing what has been discussed in a variety of other threads in the past few days.

Thanks!

[Daniel Brim]

I just want to say a hardy "Thank you" to FIRST for addressing these issues as quickly as they could. You see? They are listening to us! Just be glad that they were addressed before these regionals, so we won't have as much as a blow up this weekend as we did last weekend!

-Daniel

[Mike]

Not to sure I like the de-scoring update. Way to hard to ref, I think it will only lead to more arguments.

[Mike Norton]

I think it is to late to change the rule about the pushing robot becomes the de-scorer.

This would of had a different outcome in Fl regional.


I know FIRST wanted to see robots score a lot this year. But they should of made this rule earlier. Don't change the rules part way through the competition.

[Ali Ahmed]

Originally Posted by Mike Norton

I think it is to late to change the rule about the pushing robot becomes the de-scorer.

This would of had a different outcome in Fl regional.


I know FIRST wanted to see robots score a lot this year. But they should of made this rule earlier. Don't change the rules part way through the competition.

I agree with that it might have changed the outcomes of some matches and therefore, some regionals but they might not have seen this until this past weekend and so made the changes ASAP.

[Beth Sweet]

Originally Posted by Mike Norton

I think it is to late to change the rule about the pushing robot becomes the de-scorer.

I think that it's never too late to try to fix something that's wrong. There was so much of a problem over it that they had to do something. Probably should have been done earlier, but I'm happy that it's been done now.

[Aidan F. Browne]

Originally Posted by Mike Norton

I know FIRST wanted to see robots score a lot this year. But they should of made this rule earlier. Don't change the rules part way through the competition.

Mike,

I think its important to remember the purpose behind the FIRST Robotics Competition is not to find the best robot. The big picture is the experience that all the competitors take away with them in preparing for the competition and every time they leave a Regional or the Championship.

That said, I don't see any problems in changing rules every week if necessary in order to make each successive week a better experience for all involved. (As long as the rule changes are not significant enough to invalidate any team's overall design.)

Since all teams competing in a given week or a given Regional are playing to the same set of published rules, the rule changes don't really have the potential of hurting anything.

Aidan

[Travis Hoffman]

Thank you for finally admitting it on paper - FIRST loves them their offense and isn't afraid to modify the rules to favor it. Well, that's certainly their prerogative. Sorry, all you teams who didn't have the resources to build capable arms but still had the means to develop good enough drivetrains to employ creative, non-damaging defensive strategies - your job just became that much tougher. If ya can't live up in the clouds with the big boys, you might as well just stay out of their way.

Regarding the change to G18, I would only hope this applies if you are pushing the robot toward the goal. If you succeed in getting in between the robot and the goal and you push them outward, you shouldn't have to worry about any repercussions - how the heck can you claim that the pushing robot is descoring tetras they aren't even facing? Now, if you're pushing a capping robot toward the goal from behind, you were probably too slow in executing your defense, and you've already lost the battle. Go do something else.

As far as the *new and improved* 10-point safety penalty goes, I think it falls into the same category as the generic *overaggressiveness* penalty tacked onto G25. Meaning I don't think it's made the lives of refs, announcers, kids, and mentors trying to understand what's legal and what isn't any easier. The change also removed the requirement of mandatory disablement of robots who demonstrate unsafe activity. Now they *may* be disabled at a refs' discretion. Is that a safer approach to take, or simply one that is more offense-friendly?

It remains to be seen if the refs become any more consistent across the board. You can change the rules all you want, but if you don't effectively communicate a single, consistent direction on how to interpret them correctly, then you're still going to see the same old same old. Let's see what happens this week....

[Billfred]

I'll paraphrase Jessica Boucher here...

FIRST, you deserve a cookie.

Whenever we argue about a rule, we often try to get to the reasoning behind a rule. By putting in why FIRST is changing these rules, we now know the intended spirit of the rules. Hopefully, it'll make a difference in those gray areas that inevitably show up in the game.

[BRAVESaj25bd8]

Why do we have to play offense? I think FIRST should be encouraging creative and outside the box ways of thinking of this game. If you try to take away defense, I really do not think it will work. Teams will still play defense and they will receive this penalty. Unfortunately, a great defensive maneuver may now be the reason that an alliance loses.

[angelofsumthin]

yea i dont like it at all FIRST just killed an aspect of the game so now the robots will just go around and not bother n e one which kills the entertainment part of it im not saying kill the other robot but FIRST kills defense and it just so happens that our robot is a great pusher so yknow i mean im not freaking out its just annoying

[Elgin Clock]

OK, I'll be the one to say it.

In a competition where the underlying basis is the reward of millions in scholarships, life long learning experiences, and the joy of working together as a team there is one flaw.

Yes, the penalties.

In a microcosm such as FIRST where the goal is the reward of learning about science & technology the game structure totally contradicts the whole big picture.

What is instead of penalizing teams, we support them, by rewarding teams match by match who don't do something to merit a current penalty.

C'mon, this negative reinforcement has got to stop in a group who's goal is to inspire and reward such things as creative thinking and the knowledge you gain..

At least if it doesn't stop this year, then for next year don't make penalties as big a part of the competition that it has become this year.


<steps off of soapbox - for now...>

[angelofsumthin]

hey
good answer
im just ranting yknow
im gonna have just as great a time at nationals as i would n e way so y bother
SUPPORT VEX!!!

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by BRAVESaj25bd8

If you try to take away defense, I really do not think it will work. Teams will still play defense and they will receive this penalty. Unfortunately, a great defensive maneuver may now be the reason that an alliance loses.

I don't see it that way. The update says that the Game Design Committee wanted Triple Play to be an offense-slanted game. So of course they're going to make it hard. Defense is not impossible in Triple Play--it just takes some skill and finesse to do it without getting buried under a mountain of penalty flags.

Moral of the story? Practice your defensive techniques well, either with an old robot or even a weighted-down box. Get skilled at the forms of defense that the manual explicitly states are allowed. After all, you can't fight the manual.

[AIBob]

I personally like the updated saftey issues, they seem as though there will be more fair matches..
And of course: I have loaded the update to FIRSTsearch