Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?

[Brian Beatty]

Travis,

I apologize for my post was not being quite clear. I agree with you that I liked this years game, as well as 2004,2005, 2006 and that defense can make it more exciting. I am not necessarily advocating no defense. My point is this; as long as we have defense, we will have controversy--but there should not be. If the majority wants defense, no problem. Then lump it. And it is always more than just one little incident. 254 could make an argument for no calls on Archimedes. We have been consistently the most defensively abused team in FIRST( 233 took the brunt for us at nats). Like it, no. But we accept it. Yes we can pay the refs, train the refs, ect,ect. But don't expect anything different. And don't give me this little guy-big guy justification for defense. FIRST has to define goals of what it is trying to accomplish in the competition and if it allows a box of rocks to compete effectively against a well-engineered machine, ok( 48 is NOT a box of rocks). Every year we have these monster posts on calls, but why? That is my point.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty