Should we really be comparing Breakaway to soccer?

I have read a lot of comments that compare this years game to soccer. While I understand using the soccer analogy to explain a non-FIRSTer to the game, I think using it to do any more (like develop strategies) is a big mistake.

Other than the game piece being a soccer ball, the fact that you cannot ‘hold it’, and there is some sort of goal, there really is not much else they have in common. Soccer is not a 2 minute game, not a 3v3, no bumps, no hanging, more than one ball, no autonomous mode, only one goal, an out of bounds…oh and it is played with people not robots!

But on the other hand, Breakaway has a lot of similarities to other FIRST games (similar goals to in 2006, limited balls that each alliance can use like in 2009, role of defense similar to 2007…). I would suggest looking back at these games to determine what robot were sucessful (was it the teams with omni direction or those with power?) instead of looking at a game played with people.

Just my opinion, but I know I won’t base a strategy for my team based on soccer.

I’d still tell people that it is more like soccer just because to appeals to the lowest common denominator(sports jockies)

I think comparing it to soccer is fine when explaining it to a non-robotics person. I pretty much say it is soccer with speed bumps. Now its a very simplified version, but its usually good enough for people who are just wondering what this robotics team is doing this year.


I think that foosball is a better comparison than soccer. It just like foosball with 2 bumps and 2 different alliances on the same row.:smiley: Yeah but it’s really not like the game of soccer. It just take the same technique to achieve kicking and what not.:eek:

I agree. This year’s game is really easy to explain. It is ultimate soccer with 12 balls, 6 robots, 4 goals, and lots of fun! However, from a designing a robot point of view, the strategy varies quite a bit from soccer. It will be interesting to see how the game pans out at Regionals.

I say to our robotics friends that it is a more extreme form of ultimate football. You have to get the ball down to your end to score and when you do, you have to kick it off(sliding down the ramp) back into play we can continue to play

American football. In Australia we have “Aussie rules” football, Gridiron/American football, and sometimes soccer is still called football. It makes it SOOO confusing!!! :smiley: :smiley:

I’ve only called it “soccer” for the main purpose of, like Captain Banana, to let the people who wouldn’t be able to comprehend such a game understand it. LOL.

When it gets down to it and I know the person can understand the concept and nature of robotics, then I will tell them what the game really is, some basic designs of robotics (past and present) etc., etc. It all depends on who I’m talking to to vary the level of details I give them.

I agree with jsasaki; Foosball with speed bumps (and missing a few player rods) is a much better analogy when talking about the game. I’ve played Foosball with multiple balls on numerous occasions, just for an added degree of difficulty.

Thinking about it logically, there’s 4 “rods” per side, enough for 2 players per side. If you ignore the fact that there is a strand of “players” per rod, just counting the rods themselves there are 4 “players” per side now. Take away one rod per side; add a few speed bumps, towers, and tunnels; add several extra balls; and double the “goals” on both sides; you now have the basis for the 2010 Breakaway challenge :wink:

I’ve just been calling it “obstacle soccer”. though some of the other analogies, such as the foosball analogy seem to be better.