A few thoughts on gracious proffesionalism by a rookie mentor...

[martin417]

When I decided to volunteer to help the local high school robotics team, I had no idea what to expect. I kind of expected small, simple, remote controlled, erector set type machines that would perform simple tasks. I attended the kickoff in January, and was impressed not only with the complexity of the task and robot, but also with the philosophy of the FIRST organization. I love the idea of gracious professionalism and “coopetition”. I really enjoyed working with the kids and other mentors during the build. When I reached the regional (Peachtree regional), I was pleased to find that in the pits, the teams lived up to the motto. They were all gracious, helpful, and professional.

Then, on Friday, the matches started. What a disappointment! I believe that FIRST has done an excellent job of designing a game that encourages attaining a goal. As in real life, one wins by striving to do the best one can to attain his or her goals, not by preventing others from doing so. The game rules are carefully constructed to encourage teams to advance by scoring, and to discourage hindering other teams, a practice that some teams have called “defense”. Since one of the goals of FIRST is to model real life, and in real life, one rarely gets ahead by preventing others from excelling, I understand why the rule framers went to so much trouble to construct an offense only game. As I said, once the matches started, I was appalled. I saw many matches where one or more teams never made an attempt to score, but spent the entire match doing their best to prevent others from scoring. If the game were football, defense would be part of the game, but this is not football. Imagine watching a game of golf, and seeing Tiger Woods run out and tackle another golfer on his back-swing, or attempt to damage his clubs between holes. I saw some teams go so far as to damage other robots, and while I cannot say with certainty, it often appeared to be intentional. This is my first year of involvement with FIRST, and after the introduction I had, I was hoping for better.

I have nothing but praise for the FIRST organization, and all the people that volunteered to make the Peachtree Regional a success. Not all teams engaged in “defense”, I saw many that only did the best they could to score. I was somewhat surprised that the referee’s did not ever call an infraction of rule <G37>, even though I saw several instances that appeared, to my eyes, to be obvious violations.

I spent several days thinking about how to express this concern in a gracious, professional way. I hope I have not offended anyone. The views expressed here are mine, so if I have offended anyone, I apologize. I am curious if I am the only one that sees things this way.

Martin Wilson, PE

[GaryVoshol]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that defense was totally prohibited. Please see the existing thread "Defense, It's still here" http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61047 Note the quote from the GDC Q&A about defense being allowed.

At the Detroit Regional, the top penalties called were <G22>, <G42> and <G37>. 42 and 37 can both be considered anti-defense rules, or maybe more properly, defense-limiting rules.

[IndySam]

I am sorry that you were disappointed but defense has always been a part of the game. You should have seen the defense played the three previous years, this year is very tame compared to that.

I see nothing about playing defense that is not GP. It's part of the game and is a valid strategy that has always been around.

As far as you golf analogy, defense in golf is a mind game, a good golfer like TW is looking for every advantage they can get including messing with their opponents heads. It's not all GP either.

[martin417]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that defense was totally prohibited.

I did not say that defense was totally prohibited. I merely said that the idea, the spirit of the game, and of FIRST, is to excel by achieving, not by preventing others from achieving (my opinion).

While some defense is legal by the rules, I do not believe that acting in a defense only mode, or intentionally damaging other robots displays gracious professionalism.

[martin417]

You should have seen the defense played the three previous years, this year is very tame compared to that.

I have watched videos of some of last years matches, and I believe that the behavior during some of those matches led to the rules this year to try to prevent some of that behavior. Once again, my opinion.

[IndySam]

I did not say that defense was totally prohibited. I merely said that the idea, the spirit of the game, and of first, is to excel by achieving, not by preventing others from achieving (my opinion).

While some defense is legal by the rules, I do not believe that acting in a defense only mode, or intentionally damaging other robots displays gracious professionalism.

You are correct that intentionally damaging another robot is not GP and should lead to disqualification.

[dsmoker]

I think one other thing to consider is that not all teams have the same resources in terms of money and mentors, and as a matter of strategy build a robot that is mainly defensive, within the rules of the game, in order to play as part of a successful alliance. I see nothing wrong with the "team" way of strategizing, as long as, as stated above, the idea is to play legal defense and not intentionally damage another team's robot. We have live on defense the past two years, and did so quite successfully. This year, we chose to go on the offensive and had a little bit of a tougher time because, although our robot did what we intended it to do, it could not hurdle as fast as robots built by other teams with more money and mentors (and therefore more sophisticated designs, control systems, etc.). Not that I am begrudging these teams their resources, I am just saying that, for teams like ours, defensive and strategizing as part of an alliance when desigining can be a path to success in the game itself. And this comes from a team that won this year's Johnson and Johnson Gracious Professionalism Award at the CT Regional.

[Alan Anderson]

You are correct that intentionally damaging another robot is not GP and should lead to disqualification.

Whether or not it's GP, it's still explicitly against the rules.

ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. In all cases involving ROBOT-to-ROBOT contact, the TEAM may receive a PENALTY and/or their ROBOT may be disqualified if the interaction is inappropriate or excessive...

I haven't seen any of the matches from the Peachtree regional, so I can't comment on the quality or quantity of defense there. But I will risk a wee bit of stereotyping as I point out that about every other match had one or more rookie teams, and that rookie teams are more likely to produce robots that end up being more effective in preventing other teams from scoring than in scoring themselves. If your 'bot can't keep up with the other alliance in laps and hurdling, but can hold them back enough for your partners to keep up, I believe playing defense is the appropriate strategy.

[Taylor]

I would argue that playing defense usually allows your alliancemates more scoring opportunities - the ultimate in teamplay. It also adds to the game challenge - the truly great teams/alliances find ways to overcome defensive strategies.

[kaszeta]

I would argue that playing defense usually allows your alliancemates more scoring opportunities - the ultimate in teamplay. It also adds to the game challenge - the truly great teams/alliances find ways to overcome defensive strategies.

Agreed. Heck, one of my favorite years as a mentor[1] was Aim High, because strategy was continuously adapting throughout the competition season, and there were lots of adjustments, counter-strategies, etc (our team re-wrote our autonomous modes several times, and would even change our mode as we saw the other team lining up).

A huge part of FIRST is the team interaction: seeing what other teams are doing, and reacting to it.

[1] Also one of my least favorite, since the 8.2V bug rearing itself at Manchester was one of the most frustrating experiences I've had... But that's another story.

[ebarker]

throwing in a couple of cents here .....

I didn't see but a few matches there but it did seem like a couple of them were a little rough. I hope no one perceives us as being an offender.

Our defensive strategy was to knock opposing alliances balls off the rack near the end game. Our other two strategies was to make laps and knock balls off the rack for alliance mates that needed the ball.

In one match the bot in front of us repeatedly kept backing into our arms and kept creating an entanglement, ultimately causing a 40 point penalty and a yellow card against us. This was the first time I can ever remember seeing a crowd booing loudly and I hope to never see that again.

We seemed to convince the referees the contact wasn't intentional but the score stands.

We went to the pit, cut the arms in half, changed the software, and followed 10 feet back from the robot in front, plenty of stopping distance on slick highways.

aarrghh

[A_Reed]

I merely said that the idea, the spirit of the game, and of FIRST, is to excel by achieving, not by preventing others from achieving (my opinion).

Some would love to see this happen but it is not realistic. offensive players are not always gonna get away scott-free.

I'm no engineer but just as it is in every build season you have to overcome adversities to complete you robot within a set of parameters. I imagine real life engineering is the same way.

the adversities in the game would be teams that play defense (Legally) and the teams that overcome will be known at the end of the year as the teams with great strategy and a great robot.

[Boydean]

I agree with you on your concept on GP, I love hearing the different ways GP means to different people. But has stated not only is defense discouraged in the rules,but it is also a bad strategy in the long run for your team. Since your teams ranking score is based off your opponents raw score.

As stated here.

All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to the un-
penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to their final
score (with any assessed penalties).
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a number of ranking points equal to their
ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).


The total number of ranking points earned by a team throughout their qualification matches,
divided by the number of matches played (excluding any SURROGATE matches), then truncated
to two decimal places, will be their ranking score.

Note: because your ranking score is derived directly from the match scores of your opponent
ALLIANCES, it is in your interest that both your ALLIANCE and the ALLIANCES you “defeat”
obtain a high score. The most valuable “WIN” results from a close, high-score match.

Although this is something that encourages GP and fair play, I have seen teams who completely discards this section and wipe out their opponents.

[GaryVoshol]

I did not say that defense was totally prohibited.OK, "totally prohibited" was probably an exaggeration.

I merely said that the idea, the spirit of the game, and of FIRST, is to excel by achieving, not by preventing others from achieving (my opinion). An opinion not totally shared by everyone, but you are entitled to your opinion and to defending it. Well done in that respect.

While some defense is legal by the rules, I do not believe that acting in a defense only mode, or intentionally damaging other robots displays gracious professionalism.I totally agree here. However I've rarely seen a team that is intent on destroying another team's robot. Playing physically, yes. Sometimes outside the rules, yes, and then we hope that the referees saw it as well. But for the 4 years I've been involved with FRC, I've not seen malicious destruction.

[martin417]

But for the 4 years I've been involved with FRC, I've not seen malicious destruction.

In one of the quarterfinal matches, I observed a team deploy their manipulator (when their ball was not in the vicinity and therefore had no reason to deploy) causing it to become entangled with the arm of an opposing alliance bot. This team then backed up at full speed, ripping off the arm of the other bot. At the conclusion of that match, a team member was observed high-fiveing the driver of the offending bot and exclaiming "Dude! you are a beast!"

While not proof of intention, certainly not GP.

[Tom Bishop]

Last year we were rammed, pushed, harried, pinned, crashed into the rack, and generally knocked around at every opportunity. That's fine, it was part of the game.

In this year's game defense, compared to the year's before, was much more subtle. This year defense consisted of knocking opponents ball's down, delaying other teams from hurdling, knocking balls away from and out of opponents possession, protecting balls on the rack in the end game (sometimes by pushing, sometimes by sitting there), among other strategies. Vigorous interaction should be expected, designed for, and played. This is also fine, it's part of the game.

As others have stated, without defense FIRST games become an unexciting exhibition. On the field we compete like crazy to win, but we do so in a respectful manner. We help teams having trouble by getting their robots moving. We give each other tools and parts, programming and technical expertise. But on the field make sure your head is screwed on tight, because the opposing alliance will do everything it can to legally win.

Of course, deliberately damaging another robot is against the rules, and is very unGP. But it is difficult to judge intent when it is "your baby" out there being bashed around. Difficult for us, and difficult for the refs. It would also be GP to give teams the benefit of a doubt, and assume that their tactics are within the scope of the rules, as long as the regs don't warn, yellow card, or DQ them.

You guys had a great robot out there, and you should be proud.

[Cappeh]

As much as FIRST pushes gracious professionalism, there are always teams that play just to win. Most people won't admit it, but I've seen teams that are rude and unpolite; it's usually not the entire group, but two or three individuals that bring down their reputation for being a gracious team.

I agree, though, in the sense that some teams don't show gracious professionalism- however, playing hard defense doesn't mean that they're being ungracious. When it comes down to it, many teenagers see this as a game to play and win- it still is just a game, afterall. I do respect your opinion, however.

I believe that this year was intended to be a year for rookie teams to do just as well as veteran teams; there are many rookie teams that do not have the expertise or ability to make a highly-offensive robot. Keeping defense in the game gives them somehting that not just rookies, but any team can fall back on if their robot doesn't function properly.

Woody says that gracious professionalism is "acting how you would if you grandmother was watching you"... some people must have some really crazy grandmothers. (:

[JaneYoung]

This is just a thought that I've been carrying around for a while as I think about our rookie teams and rookie mentors - and veteran teams as well.

Perhaps the bridge foundation needs some work, strengthening.
We may have some weaknesses in areas that move from off season development through build through competition and into postmortems.

Competition, itself, is tough and I believe the game is designed for teams that compete to be able to work on many levels, not the least of which is strategy. The bridge that spans a FIRST team is Gracious Professionalism. That is not an empty phrase, it is the cornerstone of FIRST. Students and engineers and professionals working together to create a competitive team/robot/season.

I've seen posts calling for training for referees. I remember similar posts regarding inspectors. I've read posts complaining about the GDC, the venues. I've read and heard very little calling for training for Gracious Professionalism - what that is, and how it can bridge a year of FIRST for rookies and for veterans. How it continues to evolve, develop, and expand as FIRST grows and expands in every program.

When Gracious Professionalism is understood as a way of life, of how you conduct yourself, rather than a phrase to be thrown around, then it deepens the programs, the off seasons, the build season, the competitions, the networking between teams, the bridge from rookie to veteran. It also bridges the gaps between generations, positions held by students, mentors, parents, sponsors, FIRST staff.

Many rookie teams have the benefit of being mentored by veteran teams. Those veteran teams are the face of/introduction into FIRST and hopefully add strength to the bridge, helping the rookie teams move across the full season with a deepening understanding. This includes a very important part of FIRST, the robotic competition, and what it is and what it means. What its purpose is and serves. Before competition, during competition, and following competition. For rookie teams that don't have the benefit of being mentored by wise veteran teams, training in Gracious Professionalism could help this.

I understand what the OP is saying and the frustrations. I think training in this area could help in the long term. I appreciate and support a strong exciting competition that has all of us on the edge of our seats filled with awe and celebration of the teams.
Jane

[KTorak]

I don't really like the idea that there is little to no defense this year, but honestly, it's why we lost last year. We were a really stronger scoring robot at both regionals and could out score many other teams (we put up 256 at GLR!). But, we were heavy guarded in the last two finals matches and our robot ended up getting damaged making it unable to score. :(

However, I understand where the rules came from this year.

[martin417]

In this year's game defense, compared to the year's before, was much more subtle. This year defense consisted of knocking opponents ball's down, delaying other teams from hurdling, knocking balls away from and out of opponents possession, protecting balls on the rack in the end game (sometimes by pushing, sometimes by sitting there), among other strategies. Vigorous interaction should be expected, designed for, and played. This is also fine, it's part of the game.

I may have overstated my position on defense. The strategies mentioned above are all legal, and I don't have a problem with them as far as they go. However, I saw much more aggressive defensive strategies, one particular incident stands out (because it happened to us). A team rammed our bot while it was attempting to knock a ball from the overpass, causing the bot to tilt and lift it's wheels from the ground, they then backed up a few feet and waited. Every time the bot was able to disengage from the overpass, they ran forward again, ramming the bot and entangling it in the overpass. This was repeated no less than 3 times. The other bot never attempted to score during the match, it merely sat and waited for our bot to free itself from the overpass. To me, this is a blatant violation of <G37> <G37> ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. In all cases involving ROBOT-to-ROBOT contact, the TEAM may receive a PENALTY and/or their ROBOT may be disqualified if the interaction is inappropriate or excessive.

The worst part about this particular instance is that it was totally unnecessary. At the outset of the match, our alliance partner broke a drive chain and was disabled, so the chances of our alliance winning were slim to none anyway, but it really frustrated the members of the drive team.

[Alan Anderson]

I've read and heard very little calling for training for Gracious Professionalism...

How would you suggest such "training" be done? I can't see Gracious Professionalism being taught in a lecture or learned from a book. In a growing program such as FRC, one basically has to pick it up through immersion in an environment where it is expressed consistently by mentors and other role models.

The best GP training I can think of is to attend regional competitions full of Chairman's-Award-winning teams.

[JaneYoung]

How would you suggest such "training" be done? I can't see Gracious Professionalism being taught in a lecture or learned from a book. In a growing program such as FRC, one basically has to pick it up through immersion in an environment where it is expressed consistently by mentors and other role models.

The best GP training I can think of is to attend regional competitions full of Chairman's-Award-winning teams.

I agree.

I also see the need.
- The HoF comes to mind as a wonderful resource.
- Examples of what is ok and what isn't.

Teams are great at developing videos/animations that promote safety.
GP could be 'modeled' in a similar fashion.
I understand what you are saying, Alan. :)
I think there are ways to get the GP factor out there helping to introduce rookie teams into the FIRST community and helping veteran teams keep it fresh.

Jane

[Tom Bishop]

From what you have stated I would say that rule 37 was not violated since it has to do with "robot to robot" interaction. Entanglement is referring to another robot, not with a field element. Tipping over has to do with robot on it's side, wheels in the air. Robots can and do get tipped, but if it's not a high push, then it's likely a function of design.

However, I would agree that sitting there and deliberately pushing your bot in the position described is not in the spirit of a Gracious Professional, no matter what the rules say.

Don't let this experience sour you on FIRST. On balance, the positives far outweigh the negatives. I've been doing this 6 years now, and I have more fun every year, or so it seems. Hang in there!

[ebarker]

How would you suggest such "training" be done?

I think that is relatively easy. Before every public appearance, at a competition or a public show or demonstration, we meet and talk about GP, appearances, behaviour, etc. We have a lot of rookies on the team this year and it is important that they understand that when an excited 3rd grader runs up with wide eyes that that they leave us even more excited and in awe.

This is a form of training that is constantly being exerted. During the finals matches at the Peachtree we had girl scout troop in our pits and it was cool and jazzed up.

[T3_1565]

the way I see it, if it is a robot vs robot match, expect robot vs robot interactions.

You golf analogy is a bad one to use, as each golfer plays one at a time, and do not interact with one another during game play, whereas a three vs three robot match will always have elements of offense and defence.

Whenever there is something VS. something one side will always be dissapointed with the outcome. It's part of every sport. It's not being ungracious, its just how to play the game.

PS. I'm sure if the team that rammed you damaged you in any way, and they found out about it, they would be the first people there to try and fix it for you! Most teams are like that here in FIRST.

[The Lucas]

Competition and GP aren't the most natural fit, but they aren't mutually exclusive either. In order to compete effectively, it is necessary to do and say things that are, let's say GP-neutral. As long as your strategy is not to intentionally (or probably) break the rules I wouldn't say it is against GP.

In previous years, being a defense-only bot was a viable and necessary part of general "every match" strategy. This year I do not think that "all-defense, all-match, every-match" is a good strategy for a team to have and I would go so far as to say it is a bad strategy considering the lap points that are easily available for any robot with a working drive train. Sure there are occasions where you are against an elite hurdler (4-5 potential) when spending all match on them is the optimal strategy. IMHO a "lap and tap" approach is better for general matches. Focus on points from laps and play opportunistic defense. The faster you move, the more opportunities for quick defensive maneuvers while racking up the lap points.

I may have overstated my position on defense. The strategies mentioned above are all legal, and I don't have a problem with them as far as they go. However, I saw much more aggressive defensive strategies, one particular incident stands out (because it happened to us). A team rammed our bot while it was attempting to knock a ball from the overpass, causing the bot to tilt and lift it's wheels from the ground, they then backed up a few feet and waited. Every time the bot was able to disengage from the overpass, they ran forward again, ramming the bot and entangling it in the overpass. This was repeated no less than 3 times. The other bot never attempted to score during the match, it merely sat and waited for our bot to free itself from the overpass. To me, this is a blatant violation of <G37>


In regards to damaging robots, it is an unfortunate reality in any game and is usually unintentional. Many teams/drivers will even apologize for major damage in the heat of competition or offer to help you fix your robot. That is GP off the field that you don't see on the field. Please consider these actions before letting your initial impressions harden.

The infractions you are describing are among the worst I have seen/heard this year (and I watch many competitions) although they are not uncommon in previous more defensive games. I would encourage you to visit the Championships in Atlanta for at least Saturday in order to see a different perspective on how teams play this game.

[Rick TYler]

As much as FIRST pushes gracious professionalism, there are always teams that play just to win. Most people won't admit it, but I've seen teams that are rude and unpolite;

I saw a case of this in FTC one time. My son, a 4th-year veteran, was nearly apoplectic. When the team in question figured out their error (it was during a match) and did the GP thing, the audience cheered. I think the lesson was learned, for at least one team.

There's a thread going on now about "would you give your time out to the other alliance if they needed it." I'm frankly stunned that any FIRST team would answer "no" to this question. I haven't been to or watched nearly as many FRC tournaments as some old-timers, but I think it happened in about half the finals I've seen.

[feliks_rosenber]

First of all , the defense is the best offense.

GP does not necessarily mean not using defense as a means of improving the alliance score.
This has always been part of the game, part of the world of sports.

GP can be practiced in so many other ways.
Helping other teams, even your opponent alliance is just one to mention.

Many FIRST teams do know the meaning of GP.

However, every team can take action and become a role model by conveying this important FIRST value.

:)

[martin417]

First of all , the defense is the best offense.

GP does not necessarily mean not using defense as a means of improving the alliance score.
This has always been part of the game, part of the world of sports.



I do not agree that defense is the best offense. I believe that one can (and should try to) score more points than can prevent points from being scored.

Also, as I said earlier, I didn't mean to imply that ALL defense is bad, but that the MAIN goal of the game is offense, and that I observed several instances of "excessive", non GP defensive tactics.

[kborer22]

GP is an ideal that everyone should try and follow as best as possible, but being sort of an abstract thing, with an evolving meaning, it's hard to starndardize it. Most teams are not out to intentionally damage other robots but it is something that happens. Unless there is a plan on cloning Woody and Dean and giving a set of them all teams, opinions on GP are going to differ. I was on (MORT 11 in HS and now 125) and in both cases have experienced non-GP. We have been picked for alliances where we have been told this is what your doing and thats that, by an adult on the team, and we knew our strategy was better but there was nothign we could do about it.

I am on a college team in the Boston Area and can see how things could get out of hand quickly at an event. If a new team is completely inexperienced and has no idea how the are supposed to interact with the other teams, then things are going to happen. We mentor about 6 teams directly and another 9-10 indriectly, and one of the things we give them advice about is what its like on the field. Hopefully through our mentoring they will see how teams should be run and help others (we have our problems like everyone else) and how to carry themselves. But if a mentor wants a team behave in a certain way/let the kids do whatever they want then we may make a suggestions as to what they need to change, but in the end it's how they want to run it.