My case against <G14>

[bduddy]

(Note to readers: I know this post is long! There are a lot of things wrong with this rule, in my opinion... if you're planning to respond, or even if you're not, please try to read the whole thing, or at least the end. That's where I tried to put the meat of my argument.)

For those who haven't yet memorized the rulebook (shame on you!), here is the rule I am referring to:

Originally Posted by The rulebook

<G14>
CELL Count Modification – If the assigned ALLIANCE score for the last non-surrogate MATCH played by the TEAM was more than twice (2x) the opposing ALLIANCE score, then one EMPTY CELL or SUPER CELL will be withheld from the initial set of GAME PIECES made available to the PAYLOAD SPECIALIST for the TEAM. If the assigned ALLIANCE score for the last non-surrogate MATCH played by the TEAM was more than triple (3x) the opposing ALLIANCE score, then a second EMPTY CELL or SUPER CELL will be withheld from the initial set of GAME PIECES made available to the PAYLOAD SPECIALIST for the TEAM.

In plain terms: If you "double up" in one match, you lose one cell in your next match. "Triple up", and you lose both.

Anyway, as you might have guessed, I don't like this rule. In my opinion, it is a bad idea, badly thought through and badly implemented. There are way too many things that can go wrong with it and very few things that it does right. I'll lay out my objections in detail:

-What happens if an alliance scores zero? I guarantee it will happen at least once. Boom, three teams are screwed for their next match, having done absolutely nothing. Yes, an alliance could score on themselves, but that is certainly not professional and far more insulting then gracious. This is what I mean by "badly thought through".

-"Shenanigans" are far too easy. I don't hope or believe that they will happen, but even in FIRST there are some "bad apples" who may take advantage. I'm sure you can figure out how to yourself, and there are probably other threats about this as well. But even if it doesn't happen, there will naturally be speculation, and we really don't need that.

-Some of the most exciting events at any FIRST competition are when an alliance reaches a milestone. I remember in 2005, my rookie year, when our very good 'bot was paired with the always extraordinary 254 and another good team I have forgotten since then. The other alliance put up a good fight, but we managed to complete a "clean sweep" and cover every goal, and when the final tetra was placed at the buzzer the entire crowd went wild. Of course, if we had had this rule that year, we would have had to stop halfway through and throwing blue tetras on top of ours. Good luck seeing any high scores this year; I imagine that half or more of the endgames will end up with Super Cells being purposely witheld or own goals being scored just to avoid this rule. Try explaining that to the random spectators-just a reminder, they do exist, and they are crucial to FIRST's growth.

-Imagine this scenario: Rookie team 3456 has had a lot of trouble scoring or playing defense due to a reluctant powertrain and balky gripper, which prevents them from grabbing any Super Cells. But in their next match, they are paired with two expert teams, both of which are agile enough to avoid being scored upon (or they have the mythical trailer cover!). Happy that they finally have a chance for a big score, they send their coach over to the strategy meeting, where teams 123 and 456 are almost ashamed to tell them: Sorry guys, you can't score too much, or we'll have a <G14>... Or think of the rookie team member who designed some part, or the veteran that wants to go out with a bang, both prevented from seeing their robot act out to its full potential. Or the human player (many teams use rookies as human players) who has to be told not to score, not too much, possibly while being watched by friends, or family, or simply wanting to have fun and make the most of their competition.
What I'm trying to say here is that there should never be a rule that prevents teams from taking an opportunity to score. I'm not a big fan of the "ranking score" system (where higher opponents' score=good for you) in the first place, but at least that encourages offense (good for spectators) and allows smaller teams to do more. This rule, by contrast, encourages lower scoring and the shutting out of "minnow" teams.

-A team should not be punished for something they did not do. Seems simple, right? But not this year-if you're paired with a powerhouse team, and they don't get their score quite right (maybe the scorers messed up? Maybe the other team got a penalty? Who knows?), *you* take a penalty in *your* next match. How is this fair, and what purpose does this serve? Of course, there is no way to figure out individual scores, and no way to make this rule fair, which is probably a good reason it never should have happened in the first place.
Even more unfairly disadvantaged are ~six~ teams that lose one of their alliance's cells just for having the audacity of being partnered with a team that scored a lot the last match. Does this sound wrong to anyone else?

-The entire idea behind the rule-that blowout winners are somehow doing something wrong, and need to be punished, or that the playing field of what appears to be a close game needs to be artificially leveled-is, in my opinion, horribly wrong and misguided. That idea might get some traction in the lowest levels of Little League, or JrFLL maybe. But come on, we're dealing with high school students here. There is just as much to be learned, if not more, from a blowout, devastating loss then from a big win. A loss can inspire a team to action, teach them what they did wrong, and give them a glimpse at what to do to become really successful. And I'm don't subscribe to the theory of "students are inspired by watching big money, engineer-built robots crush them", but trying to essentially keep the scores down until the finals doesn't help anybody.

Some of these are niggling little issues. Others are not. But when you have a rule that does this many things wrong, it needs to have a pretty compelling reason for inclusion. I cannot think of one. FIRST cannot honestly believe that spectators or team members will respond to the false excitement that this rule attempts to generate. And my idea of "strategy" is not sandbagging or scoring own goals. Those correspond better to my idea of a game that is a joke. What ever happened to recognizing excellence?

<G14> will make the game less exciting, less pure, less legitimate, and take away the learning that is supposed to be inherent in this competition. I presume that the GDC thought it through and found some reason it deserves inclusion in this year's rulebook, but I would much prefer if it was one of the victims of the first Team Update. If anyone wants to chime in with their idea of a reason, I'd be glad to hear it.

EDIT 4: This post has been revised, so to speak. I've added a couple things and tried to reorganize it a little bit.