Capping Goals

Ok so were an 8th grade team we can usually beat one team but one (they relief heavily on the center goal we have a dual tread bot w/ 10 motors so Ive bee trying to think of a way to cap the center goal any suggestions?

Is your wheel base powerful? Because if it is, you could just sit in front of the goal and keep your opponent away. Another technique is to let them fill the goal and then negate it at the end. As for capping the goal, our autonomous program sometimes wedges a ball and a barrel in the top of the goal and they stay there, blocking other pieces (however it’s relatively easy to push them down into the goal).

Hmm, it’s pretty hard like that, the design. I think it’s nearly impossible?

Robert  Fernandez uploaded this image to

It took our B team a while to figure out how to do that.

The center goal is the most disputed goal in a match and everyone usually fights over it, if you could wedge a ball and a barrel in the top and block it, it may prevent some robots that may be unable to push it down and fix this from effectively scoring, but it doesn’t seem possible with the dual conveyor belt design i’m assuming you have from your post. If you can program an autonomous to get the first three objects in the goal, it won’t matter if they double it because it will even out and it isn’t that much to lose if negated. you could also take a slightly more risky approach and fill up your isolation 30" and double it and attempt to negate the center goal. My final thought would be to ram the wall of scoring objects and surround the center 30" with balls and barrels and prevent other robots from getting close enough to score, or at least slowing them down by having to clean up a path.

We’ve figured out that when you have at least 1 good scoring robot, capping goals is a waste of time. It takes too long, and if 1 robot is doing good anyways, and can hit the middle goal in autonomous, it shouldn’t have to be done.

Yeah, I would suggest scoring in that goal during autonomous.

If you can reliably wedge a barrel and a ball into a goal sideways, then I thought of a unique (but risky) strategy:
You pick up the other alliance’s objects and put them into the 30" goal, but stacked sideways so they are not scored, which both removes some of the over alliance’s objects from play while occupying the middle 30" goal.
It’s risky and will be difficult to get right (as banditofernando said), but could be a game-changer if someone actually managed to do it.

Well, if you’re in a position to wedge the goal, that means you’ve gotten there first anyway, so why not score all your pieces regularly? It’d be more useful in your opponent’s isolation zone, but generally they have a piece or two in there quite early in the match.

If you put your objects into the center 30" instead of the other alliance’s objects, there is a chance that it gets negated. I’m not saying what I suggested will be practical at all, but it does effectively horde the objects without having to use a robot.

Er, if you wedge them in under the plane of the goal, the barrel is not scored. It ends up over the outer rim of the goal. However, the ball is scored, and by clause one too, so it can’t be descored. If the stack is above the plane of the goal, then both are scored, and descoreable.

Unrelated: I wonder if it’s legal to raise the objects in a goal to put your own underneath them and then lower them back down.

I don’t remember the answer, but this WAS asked in the Q&A.

The way I tested it the ball was sticking out of the side.

I think there’s a specific Q&A addressing putting objects under other objects in a goal, but this is the closest I found:

You can’t put objects under the bottom-most object because it is changing its score (my assumption from the Q&As I’ve read).

Now if you were to push objects up such that they are no longer scored with clause 1 (within the goal) and are sticking out of the top, and then another robot descored them, would the first robot be disqualified? That’s what I think the Q&A says, but I wonder if a ref would actually do that or respond to a team that claimed that had happened, because the ref would have to know that it had been scored under clause 1 and then remember that it was the same object that was later knocked off the top of the goal, not to mention which team actually did the initial descoring (moving the object up).

This is becoming very unrelated very fast…