A Question on Sportsmanship
 

I was involved in FIRST competitions all through high school (am a Junior in college now), and recently got a chance to see a local post-season competition. When i was involved with FIRST, there was always an overpowering sense of community, and more importantly, sportsmanship.

At the recent event. I witnessed one alliance refusing to let the opposing alliance replace a malfuntioning robot with their third member. Instead, they were forced to play 2 vs 1. This team went on to win the competition.

What do you all think of this? I, personally, was upset that someone would care that much, especially in a post season competition. Opinions?

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

I'm proud to say that the real season wasn't that way at all:
http://chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27712
http://chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26781

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

Well, if the replacement robot had already played two games, and this happened before the third match, then it is perfectly legit. I believe the rule is that any one robot can't play more than 2 games per round.

If this wasn't the case, then that's seriously questionable behavior.

MrToast

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

My concern was more along the lines on whether or not it was sportsmanlike, even if it WAS legit.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

It probably wasn't sportsmanlike. I can't say for certain, since I didn't witness it, and all I have to go off of is hearsay. I can see that this will probably end up being a Justice vs. Mercy thread.... (providing it was a legit call)

MrToast

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

actually...i think the rule is that all robots have to play within the first two matches. techinically, if a round went to three games robots A and B could play rnd 1. A and C round two. (now all requirements are met) and A and B could go back for round three. or whatever. a robot could play every round if it wanted to.

as far as the sportsmanship question...sanddrag is right...the regularseason was full of teams bending the rules. the AZ winners were crowned that way. it's a team and an alliance call...i don't know the circumstances so i won't pass judgement.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

I beg to differ. Why should the opposing alliance be asked if their opposition be switched out? There are rules in place where alliance captains get to choose to put 2 robots on the field. They also have a 6 minute timeout to deal with. If they chose wrong or did not use their timeouts efficiently, then why is it the other alliance's fault? In my opinion, the head ref should stick to the rules and the other alliance should not be put in the position to enforce these rules. The other alliance should not even be asked.

Robots break. That is part of the FIRST challenge. If a robot breaks down, that is part of the game. Teams need to realize this and not turn a blind eye to rules when it happens.

If an off-season tournament defines which rules they are going to slack off from, then they should notify the teams upfront. If these rules are not changed, then all teams should play by them during the course of the event.

Rules are there for us to follow. If we want to change them, do it at the appropriate time.

Personally, I do think that the alliance captain's choice of which robot plays combined with the 6 minute puts some teams in a tough situation. This could be improved. I don't have a great answer for this right now, but while there are rules in place, I would side on following them.

Just my 2 cents.

Andy B.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

The wording seems wrong here. The rules don't give alliances the power to choose which rules to enforce in the first place, so the term "refuse" is too strong a choice. It makes it appear that you're condemning an alliance for merely not ignoring the rule about which robots must play.

I don't know the whole situation, but from the description you gave, I have to say that the complaint seems in poor sport.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

What happened was that one alliances robot was malfuntioning and could not be repaired. They wanted to know if they could use their third member, and the head ref asked the other team if they would allow the switch, and they said no.

I fail to see how my complaint is in poor sport when I was just a spectator, i asked for your opinions on it to see what other people thought, and didnt give any names. I'm just curious how people feel about situations like this and what you would do if you were the opposing team.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

Lets look at what happen.

1st round Buzz and there teammate play us team 61 and 1100. we were stopping buzz from getting balls and the 2x while 1100 was getting points for us. 2/3 the way in 1100 went after Buzz team mate they hit them once and they went over in doing so 1100 move away from them and fell over. we went up and hung that was the game. We would of won that match but the Ref. called it intent to tip over a robot. The robot that was tipped over had there arm up in the air and was very unstable as it was. this team was going to go for the 2x ball. 1100 had all the right to stop them from doing this. So we were DQ and Buzz got that win. then we sat there for 5 minutes then the head ref came over and said Buzz is taking a 3 min. time out. so we waitted then the Ref ask if the other teammate take buzzes place. We said no. then 10 min later they ask if buzz now can be placed on the field because they were somewhat fixed. once again we said no. So the Chief Ref gets on the PA and tells everybody it is our fault that we will not let buzz put there robot on the field.

Match finally started 2 vs 1 we win. We think the right has been wrong. lets play the 3 match and find out who will win. Within 3 seconds of getting control of our robot there teammate robot flipped over because they were going for the 2x ball on the goal and our robot push the goal into there robot causing it to flip over. We score enough point to win. But we waitted for the Ref to go and get the rule book and look in it for something this took another 5 minutes before they told us to get our robots. finally they posted the score. and we won that round.

But it is not over. The Head ref that was doing this was the Head Ref at UTC.

To we go into the finals. First match we won but by doing so we broke one pulley so we had to fix it. No problem we will put in our other two robots. one robot went on the field the other one getting ready to be put on the field and we heard you have 4 min. to let your robot cool down. so this team 1100 did not put there robot out yet. next thing we know the head ref tells me you can not put that robot on the field becuase your 3 min. are up. So I told him we will take a time out. he tells us sorry you can't do that now. After he told everybody about how we said no. he did not go over to the other team and ask them if we could go on. becuase once again there was no problem with our teammates robot it was just the lack of info that kept the robot from being put on the floor.

Question on Sportsmanship would fall on the Head ref. he gave the buzz over 10 mins and then delayed the game more. Then made a big seen telling everybody what we were doing. And before that he let a robot on the floor when it was not ready during the seeding rounds. we waited again over 6 mins because they said the field was bad then once the other robot came out and put on the field the field once again started to work right. We did not say anything because it was the right thing to do.

But to have a Ref make a big impact on the results is just wrong. I know they changed the rules a little the day of and not telling us before hand. The rule change was they put all the 10 point balls on the floor after the 45 sec are up. and that you can hang off the side of the pole. Both of these rules changes helped out the ball handers and the robots that could hang from the side of the pole which was one. because the other robot that hung from the side of the bar did it legally.

So the rule changes and the way thing were done it put one team at a better advantage then others that showed up. If they only did the ball change that would have been great. but to change a rule so your robot does better is just not right.

Sorry to go on as long but the injust was put on team 61 which should not have had. our drivers did well and our robot did very well and to try to take that away was not right. there were parents and adults telling our students how bad they were. and how unfair this was and we shouldn't have won.

Our teammates played well and we played well. We just ask to be treated fair.

sorry about any mis spelled words I was in a hurry.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

Not great sportsmanship. Assuming that the other side (the one with the broke bot) was not being deceptive, etc., such behavor is opposite to the spirit of FIRST.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

A few questions on what happened before I form an opinion.

Its been said that in the first match, Buzz was broken. They asked 61 if they could be replaced by their partner for the second match? My understanding is, you shouldn't have to ask the other team who can play, just as long as the team who didn't play before is in the round. The only situation where you can get a 2 on 1 is that which the 3rd team (the team who hadn't played the first round) was not available for the second match. Can you clarify this? The second question is, did team 61 use a timeout in the elimination rounds before they asked for one in the finals?

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

I disagree. While I agree that when the opposing team denies the other team the chance to repair their robot they are not particularly doing a gracious deed to that team, there is nothing ungracious or unsportsmanlike about their choice. It's not as if they intentionally did something to harm the other team. You must remember that FIRST is a competition, and while letting the other team fix their robot is a very gracious gesture, at the same time it is unfair to the other members of the team who made the decision, their allies, and their supporters, because it takes away an extra chance to succeed that was gained fairly.

This same situation did in fact occur during a regional event this year, at the Canadian Regional. During the quarterfinals, one of our opponents broke down, used up their time out, and then wanted to switch robots. The refs came to me, the alliance captain, to make the call (something, as Andy Baker pointed out, which shouldn't have taken place since the rules are clear) and I decided, not wanting to let down the rest of my team and our alliance partners, to not allow the switch. I have not regretted my decision in the time since then, and neither I nor the mentors on my team regarded this choice as being unsportsmanlike.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

they told the ref which team where going to be on the field which was buzz. while they were trying to fix the robot and ran out of time then they asked for the other robot to be placed on. We said no. then they called for a time out. then when they could fix it in the time alloted we waitted until they did have a machine partly fix by then 10 mins had gone by and we said no

team 61 never called a time out. I just found out that the ref indeed ask the other team if it would be all right to let or teammate put their robot on the field and they told him no. We did not here the head ref say that on the PA system.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

With reguard to the situation that Mike and others are talking about:

The teams had to tell me which robots were going on 4 minutes before their match started. Team 1474 told me that it was going to be buzz and another robot that was going in. I wrote this down, then went over to ask the 61 alliance which robots would be going in. The second both alliances told me what robots were going in, their decision was final.

In this particular situation, 61 did have the choice whether or not to allow the broken robot to be fixed, or to allow the other robot from buzz's alliance to go in place of buzz. But this was still a choice. If 61 had wanted to, they probably could have called their timeout and let buzz compete, but the chose not to. They could have had incredible sportsmanship, but they definitely were not poor sports by say no to the head ref's question.

That being said, there were several other instances of poor sportsmanship i overheard/witnessed, but the major one had to do with the attitudes and actions of team members after a critical decision by the reffign crew. The head referee's decision should never be mocked... the head referee has a very difficult job to do, especially in situations such as this one.

Besides these small problems, the professionalism shown by the competitors in boston was amazing. All of the teams i spoke to during the finals and qualifications were very courteous and seemed to be happy to be there.

Can't wait for beantown blitz II!

Tom Schindler