At today’s scrimmage at Rosmini College, we created another scoring quiz question, taking into account some of the recent scoring questions on forums as well as some of the more common misconceptions about scoring in goals. Now of course it’s a pretty obscure case, but it highlights some rules that people have either not read or forgotten.
A thirty inch goal has the following objects in it from the top to the bottom:
Black Negation Barrel
Blue Ball
Red Barrel
Red Ball
White Doubler Barrel
Red Ball
White Doubler Barrel
Additionally, a blue robot is touching the black negation barrel, and a red robot is touching the blue ball.
What is the final score of this goal, for red and for blue?
(Answer and explanation will be posted after people have had an opportunity to try it out)
This score is correct. Chuck was really close and his reasoning was mostly correct, except he forgot that the doubler still applies to blue, so from blue’s perspective the doubler and negator cancel each other out, leaving blue with one point.
There is one blue ball, which is worth 1 point since it’s not the bottom scoring object. You count the bottom white doubler only, and blue has a negator effect since they’re touching it. Doubler cancels out negator, so there is no net effect on blue’s score. Therefore blue scores 1.
This is a good exercise for teams, but this situation should never occur in an actual gateway match unless a team defends a goal for three quarters of the match just to introduce a doubler as the first object in the goal. And then having two more special barrels end up in the goal would be ridiculously unlikely. Also strategically whichever team placed the negation on top (likely blue because they are still touching it) was just wasting a negation because the contents of the goal would be doubled with or without it. But I guess it’s not a bad idea for teams to know how to score goals regardless of the situation.
Strategy is so-so, but not terrible. Score was 8red 2blue without the negator, so red is up by 6.
With a scored, untouched negator added, the score would be back to the undoubled 4red to 1 blue, so red is only up by 3. Actual poor performance by blue makes the score 8red, 1blue, so red is up by 7. A chance of 3 point improvement with risk of 1 point degradation.
Jumper11 is mistaken about the waste. It was the 2nd doubler that was completely wasted, since it has no effect on the score.
Ah true. I mixed up the order of the rule. Still completely ridiculous. Honestly if someone is going to try to fill a goal like this I’ll have fun scoring the rest of the field…
When we make scoring questions like this, it’s not about whether it’s realistic or not. The idea is to highlight misconceptions or misunderstandings about the scoring rules. We end up having to make them pretty unrealistic so that we can cover as many rules as possible in the one question. We want to help ensure that referees know how to deal with these stranger scoring situations, so that if they do occur they don’t get it wrong (because no one likes arguing with a ref).
Also, we’ve actually seen plenty of matches with some good robots where there have been empty thirty inch goals up to the 30 second mark. Usually it’s in the isolation zone though.
yeah, died here too
at first it was just gateway rules and stuff, but then there came the random questions…
sorry, im no pokemon fan
(i copy and pasted with a space at the end of it and got it wrong :()
