But what the heck is the problem with goal tending?
The rule states: you cannot impede the downward fall of a thrown ball with any part of a robot or a big ball held by a robot.
First Consider this- to stop an opponent you want to jam a big ball into their goal before they get a chance to fill it. While in the process of doing so they start throwing balls and some hit your machine- you get a big penalty for goal tending
Now consider this- you want to cap your own goal to double your points but the other team wants to maximize their score by adding to your goal. Your capping attempt deflects their balls. I say it should be the same penalty.
In other words-Therefore- any thrown ball hitting a robot while placing a big ball or in front of the opening of a goal could be called goal tending.A smart human player with a decent aim should hold a ball or two aside until the other team goes to cap and then throw them at the big ball while the capping is going on- to lower the opponents score by penalizing goal tending.
Realistically- I doubt any two referees in the whole system will call this or any goal tending the same way (recall the issue of robots bearing grating interactive struts last year). Therefore the issue is going to be a hot one.
This game is really poor in terms of a defensive strategy. In essence, if you have a decent basketball player there really isn’t any way to stop him/her once the balls get off the field. You can block the opponents ball chute but that makes the game pretty boring. Since it is in the corner if they tried to push you out chances are they would be pinning and forced to back off periodically. So this is a basketball shootoff with robots as ball boys.
We went over this at the San Jose kickoff. There is a difference between putting a big sheet of aluminium over the top of the goal and holding it there, or holding the ball over the goal, and just putting the ball on the goal and then going off to do something else. It’s all intent. Remember 95% of the rules are written for the 3% who try to break them. FIRST is just saying, “don’t be a jerk”. Most refs probably won’t call it if the capping looks legit, but if they see you doing it repeditly, or holding the ball there so the other team cannot take it off, you will probably be penalized.
goaltending is for on the way down. If you wanted, put an 8 or 9 foot arm on the bot, a big sheet of aluminum, and just raise it up over the human players, give em another 2-3feet to shoot over and impair ther vision. And it is all legal because the ball is still on its way up and the hand would still be in the arena. But, as Dean said, that would kinda be pulling a lawyerism and “interpreting” the rules to exploit the freedoms given to you.
I’m also not sure if they intended this rule to make a robot-held backboard illegal. Technically, if you latch onto a goal with a backboard-like device, that would mean you “impede the downward fall of a thrown ball with any part of a robot or a big ball held by a robot.” Yet, their choice of word, goaltending, seems to imply the spirit of the rule was to stop people from covering the goal. Seems to me like the spirit of the rule should allow for a backboard, but the wording makes it illegal.
On the otherhand, a backboard can be a backboard in one orientation and a blocking mechanism in another depending on which goal you have…
there are no ‘asists’ wich means that you cant be a backboard, and i would bet there is somthing along the same lins that sais you cant impar the vision of the human player
Chack the manual, in section 4. it says something along the lines of ‘No device may be used to assist the human players in shooting the balls into the goals.’ I.e. No funnels, backboards, or the like.
Wow, 3 posts at once. anyways, it would not be impairing the vision, it would be making them give more arc to thier shot which as any player knows, excessive arc makes a shot hard, especially if you are hitting a goal below what you have to shoot over (wall=8ft, goal=6ft, wall plus board=10ft?)
If a thrown ball hits your robot on the way down, but was not meant intensionally, then it is not known as goaltending. If your robot is trying to block the ball from landing in the opponent’s goal on the way down, then that is considered goaltending.
I’m going to make this short and sweet. The whole point of no goal tending is, the fact that unless robots could put in the small balls, the only possible scores are 50, and 100 points thus they have to protect the human players ability to shoot. Next, without a doubt they would penalize you for holding the ball even the first time for the simple fact of rules <G20> ROBOTS cannot GOALTEND either the mobile or stationary Goals. and <G21> While a ROBOT is holding a LARGE Ball, that ball will be considered an extension of the robot. The only way to get around that rule is to have the robots arms not be touching the ball or your’e screwed. It’s plain and simple as that.
yes, you can move the goal around. I still say the judges will be lienent on this subject and take it case by case. Capping and being hit is one thing, holding the ball there to block shots is another. If this were true, when you cap your own goals, a good shooter could chuck a ball at your goal, hit the big, yellow ball, call it goaltending, ang cut your score in half. Remember, this year, a lot of the manual, as Dean said, is common sense. Dont’ abuse it or we’ll get legal documents next year.
Not at all. The rules explicitly say that goaltending is only when the ball is on it’s way down. If they didn’t want any interference, they would have said that.
I didn’t see anything in the rule book about not being able to block the ball corral.
Not acting lawyerly is going to come back and bite FIRST in the butt, mark my words.
Unfortunately one person’s common sense is very different from another’s and the game is supposed to be about originality. It is nice to be warm and fuzzy about this and believe that the right decisions will be made but if that is the case why have any rules at all.
Case by case means that at one site anything goes and at another every tiny infraction is enforced. I recall big issues in 2001 about tethers that varied from outright violations of rules to “well they made it so let them use it”. It reared again in 2003 with hooks on the gratings.
There is no reason why goaltending shouldn’t be allowed- pit human vs machine. Otherwise this becomes a basketball game where the robots are incidental. I’ve already been instructed by team advisors to find a basketball player to be the human player. My God- this sounds like the antithesis of FIRST is supposed to be! Bring in the athlete to show that a good athlete is the only way you can be successful in a robot competition!
In a basketball game there is defense. If every time a player received a ball everyone cleared the basket to give him a clear shot I doubt basketball would be exciting.
I am waiting for the ruling that robots can’t block the feeder chutes and that would pretty much end all defense.
Personally I am quite disappointed in this restriction in the rules. It may be unpopular to say but I think the rules need to be changed and defense of the goals allowed.
I do not think this rule should be changed, maybe we should accept the game for what it is, and play it… How boring would this game be when your team builds a big backboard, and blocks all shots by the human player… i’d hate to watch that match, it’d be almost as boring as watching the history channel…
Take the game, with all the rules that are in the manual, and play it… the kind folks at FIRST have put way more thought in this game than most people realize.
