Goaltending...as a strategy?

[dlavery]

Wow, you guys have done it! And it took you less than four hours! By figuring out a loophole in the rules, you have found a way to violate the obvious intent of the rules, break the spirit of the game, and potentially bring all the collusion arguments from last year back into the fray.

(haven't figured it out yet? Think about this: "ohh, we can give our downtroden opponents 50 points by intentionally goaltending 10 times, and raise their score" "hey, they can do the same for us" "so wouldn't that raise BOTH our scores?" ... the rest of the discussion is obvious)

The goaltending PENALTY is called a PENALTY for a reason! Rule G-20 is pretty clear - goaltending is a bad thing. The intent of the rule is unmistakable.

PLEASE remember what was said during the kick-off. A very significant effort went into creating a minimal set of rules this year, and get away from the encyclopedic tome full of exceptions, fine print, and legalese that they had become. This was done to make the rules easier to understand, simpler, and better for everyone. But along with that comes some additional responsibility on your part. That responsibility requires that you make a resonable effort to understand the intent of the rules, and abide by that intent.

Yes, you can probably find and exploit this and other loopholes in the rules. But when you do, your entire team better be involved in the discussion about it. Everyone must be comfortable with the example that they are setting, and the standards of behavior that they have chosen. Because EVERYONE on the team will likely be labelled with certain derogatory terms by all the other teams that chose to abide by the rules.

Lawyers find loopholes. Engineers find solutions. For which would you rather be known?

-dave

[mtaman02]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Wow, you guys have done it! And it took you less than four hours! By figuring out a loophole in the rules, you have found a way to violate the obvious intent of the rules, break the spirit of the game, and potentially bring all the collusion arguments from last year back into the fray.

(haven't figured it out yet? Think about this: "ohh, we can give our downtroden opponents 50 points by intentionally goaltending 10 times, and raise their score" "hey, they can do the same for us" "so wouldn't that raise BOTH our scores?" ... the rest of the discussion is obvious)

The goaltending PENALTY is called a PENALTY for a reason! Rule G-20 is pretty clear - goaltending is a bad thing. The intent of the rule is unmistakable.

PLEASE remember what was said during the kick-off. A very significant effort went into creating a minimal set of rules this year, and get away from the encyclopedic tome full of exceptions, fine print, and legalese that they had become. This was done to make the rules easier to understand, simpler, and better for everyone. But along with that comes some additional responsibility on your part. That responsibility requires that you make a resonable effort to understand the intent of the rules, and abide by that intent.

Yes, you can probably find and exploit this and other loopholes in the rules. But when you do, your entire team better be involved in the discussion about it. Everyone must be comfortable with the example that they are setting, and the standards of behavior that they have chosen. Because EVERYONE on the team will likely be labelled with certain derogatory terms by all the other teams that chose to abide by the rules.

Lawyers find loopholes. Engineers find solutions. For which would you rather be known?

-dave

well said. i remember we had many discussions about this last yr on how to try and give the opponents high points so that you can better your rank and having your opponents keep a high score.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Lawyers find loopholes. Engineers find solutions. For which would you rather be known?

Engineers tend to find creative and alternative solutions to problems. I am down in the rankings and I am currently way ahead in the match...I don't have access to their mobile goal and my human player can't reach their stationary goal. My robot can't score small balls. If they shoot while I am hovering above their goal with the big ball ready to cap it, I can up their score but limit it as well. It sounds like a creative solution to me.

But...I do see your point about it getting out of hand and leading to collusion. So from that aspect, yes, it is a very bad idea and should not be done. But obviosly many people had this thought and to be honest, it wasn't too hard to come up with.

Previous to your post, my signature was "I live in the loophole!" In hindsight, it could be taken the wrong way, but it sounds much better than "I live in a place where thinking differently about rules can lead to many more possibilities!"

-Kev

[westy67]

Very well spoken Dave. And Thank You.

Team 79
Engineer's Rock

[deltacoder1020]

one of those things that sounds great and might even work somewhat well on the spot, in a pinch, but should never be considered as a pre-planned strategy.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by dlavery

...break the spirit of the game, and potentially bring all the collusion arguments from last year back into the fray.
-dave

AMEN Dave. The first thing I thought of here was the collusion problem from last year. Stop and examine the obvious results of a post before posting. In the end, you are only likely to give more information to those who are likely to break the spirit of the rules anyway.

I can understand not liking the rule and it's interpretation, but let's look at the bigger picture. Build the machine and play the game the way it is meant to be played.

Here's a non-scientific formula for you:
Lots of goaltending flags = terrible game to watch AND play = bad for FIRST