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

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

I'm going to restate some things that have already been mentioned, but I think it's worth it.

Consider the perspective of the alliance captain of the teams who have all their robots it working condition. By asking him whether you can play your third robot, you're asking him whether or not you can break the rules. Think about that.

Look at the position you've now put this poor young man or women in. On one hand they know that if they say no, they can basically ensure victory for their alliance. So, on this side they're feeling pressure from three entire teams. But if they say no, they have to deal with people telling them that they are unsportsmanlike, and don't embody what is right with FIRST. You've now placed this person in a spot where they either let an entire alliance down, or they earn the label of being un-FIRST like. How fair is that?

And all this because you want to step around the rules?

It's almost as if the alliance captain is being guilted into making a choice.

I hate to sound melodramatic and critical, but I really think at certain point people need to accept the rules, and deal with them. I think it's completely admirable and amazing for a team to lend a timeout to another team, or let a different robot play. But they should not be put in the position to make that choice. The rules exist for a reason.

I always say "you can't get what you don't ask for". This is very true, but sometimes asking isn't the fairest thing you can do.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

These types of situations are always awkward. I feel that Karthik is very right here, and posted my opinions better than I could ever say.

I don't believe in 'guilting' another team into sharing their professionalism - professionalism is something you display on your own, not something to be asked for.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

If this thread is referring to what I think it is, then the match in question was in the finals. The finalists were 571, 61, and 1100 on one side, with 181, 126, and 178 on the other. As I recall, 571 and 61 played match 1, and won. The rules state that each robot in an alliance must play at least one match. 61 and 571 had already played, so both could not play in match 2. I'm not sure what happened on 1100's end (I think due to technical difficulties they couldn't get their bot ready in time), but they were unable to field their robot for match 2. From what I heard, it sounded like the question was asked whether 61 could play the second match. I guess the refs enforced the rules and said no, 61 could not play with 571, because both had played in the previous match. I was sitting at the scoring table with Dez, so I didn't hear any of the conversations, but I think the head ref got on the mic to explain what was happening.

What happened then was an incredible show of determination on 571's part... In match 2, two robots vs. one, the score ended up tied, 70-70 (571's amazing ball handling enabled them to score enough balls to counter a hanging robot and 4 balls from the other alliance). In the finals though, ties are not allowed. A match that ends in a tie must be replayed- so the match didn't count as anything for either side. By the time that match was over though, 1100 was ready for action, and stepped in for match 2 second edition. As I recall, 181, 126, 178 won that match, something like 85-70 (Interestingly, 571 and 1100 scored the exact same number of balls as 571 did themselves in the previous match).

So ultimately 571, 61, and 1100 took match 3 (don't remember the score), and ended up winning the first Beantown Blitz. The whole day was filled with exciting matches- especially the eliminations. Even though we didn't see any high score records (highest score was 180), the matches were filled with more than enough offensive and defensive action to make them exciting! Kudos to all the teams involved, and to Erin, Aidan, Dez, Tom, and all the volunteers who made it such a great event!

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

not having been at BtB, i am not going to comment on the actual incident. the story, however, does not merely end there. My team (571), was part of 61's alliance, and by the transitive property we are now taking flak for decisions made by our alliance captain that some people, such a Steve M, have deemed ungracious.

I realize that, as a part of 61's alliance, my views are slightly biased. but I ask you this - which is more ungracious? that we were part of an alliance that won because of our alliance captain's (61) unwillingness to allow another team to break the rules? or members of that team, out of bitterness, attempting to give our alliance a bad reputation through complaints such as this?

allow me to illustrate further. a few days after beantown, a student on our team was contacted by another student from a team that was apparently extremely unhappy about the events that transpired. he informed our team member that the entire first community was extremely pissed about what we had done, and that certain members of his team were even going to the extent of writing letters to FIRST informing them of the incident, so that if we ever were to try for a chairman's award we would not even be considered.

now, this is most likely just the pent up frustration of an individual who does not represent the whole of his team, seeing as some of his claims are extremely difficult to believe. nonetheless, it illustrates just how out of proportions some of these issues can be blown into. the fact that someone would be so angry over the event as to threaten retribution over us for a decision made by a completely different team goes to show that we should all step back, take a deep breath, and stop lingering over sour grapes. this is a competition, and it is supposed to be fun. a strategic decision another team makes that somehow puts your team at a disadvantage is just that, a strategic decision. it is not a personal affront to your honor, and is not intended as such. If we did insult anyone to such an extent, then I apologize on the account of our team and our alliance. we made a strategic decision, and I would hope in the future such decisions will be viewed in the light in which they are intended.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

:shaking head: My recomendation for anyone put on the spot like this: immediately refuse to make the decission, let the refs handle it. Don't think, just refuse.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

Judging from the stories I have heard, I think that this situation is very unfortunate. I do agree with Karthik that 61 was put in a rough position. No one should ever be flamed for following the rules, and its unfortunate that is what happened. On the other hand...it IS an offseason event. The purpose of offseason events is for a good, lighthearted, fun competition. I respect team 61 fully and will always consider them to be great competitors, however, sometimes there are just cases where ya gotta lighten up and be lax about the rules. I learned a valuable lesson last year after Battlecry that sometimes we take ourselves and this competiton a little too seriously and to heart, and we need to avoid that and just have fun with it. That being said...was team 61 wrong? Absolutely not, they followed the rules as written. I may not agree with their decision, and I may not have made the same decision myself, but I respect it because its within the bounds of the rules.

As for the second thing I heard...if teams 61's alliance did not call a timeout in all of the elims, and they were not allowed to take a timeout during finals...there is something very wrong with that. I would hope that the ref staff would be professional enough to not let emotion or personal difference get in the way of making a decision. I would like to hear the explanation from Aidan or anyone else from the ref staff, as far as I have ever known of Aidan, he has never been the type to be unprofessional in that manner. There is always two sides to each story, it would be good for us all to be able to hear both.

Have fun!
-Andy Grady

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

Mike --

I don't know what you are doing, or why you are doing it -- but your two posts are full of fictitious slander -- which I will not accept from you.

For some reason that I do not understand, you seem extremely bitter about something that happened at Beantown Blitz. That became obvious on Saturday, when you came over to me during the finals and started screaming at me about the fact that you didn't like the call and that I should call by the rules. (which, imho, was extremely ingracious behaviour) The fact is Mike -- that I did call by the rules -- as I'm sure you have figured out by now, it was you that were not aware of the rules -- don't get on my case for that.

Now, the truth as to what happened:

As Mike stated, there was a disqualification called on the 61 Alliance for intentional tipping in the first match of the SF. Thats a fact - its the way it happened - it was a unamimous decision by the ref crew. Enough said there.

Both alliance captains declared which robots were playing in match two - as they were required. Four minutes after the end of the first match, the 1474 Alliance was not yet on the field -- I went to the alliance captain to find out why, and he informed me that they had called a time out for team 175 to be repaired -- I told them he had not told me -- he said he had told the field attendant -- which I verified. Although that was a mistake on the Alliance Captain's part, I gave him the benefit of the doubt - decided there were three minutes left in his timeout, and went to inform the 61 Alliance Captain of the situation. At the end of the timeout, team 175 was not ready, I, per the rules, did not allow them onto the field. As that discussion was taking place with the Alliance Captain, team 175 became ready. The Alliance Captain asked me if I would ask the other Alliance if they could still put the robot on the field. Although I was clear on the rule, I decided, in the sprit of the off-season competition, to honor his request. When I asked the 61 Alliance Captain, he said he wanted to consult with his coach, then immedicately came back to me with his decision not to allow leeway of the rules. At that point, I was ready to start the match, when it was brought to my attention, that the crowd was thoroughly confused. I took a mic and explained to the crowd exactly what had just transpired, in a completely unbiased manner. Then I immediately started the match. The 61 Alliance won that match, forcing a third match.

As we were setting up for the third match, the 1474 Alliance Captain ran up to me - stating that he had declared 1474 and 839 as the two teams to play in match three, however, at the time he had made that declaration, he was not aware that team 839 had blown a drive motor, and was unable to move. He wanted to swap 175 with 839. I informed him that he was past the time limit to do so, and he again pleaded with me to ask the other Alliance. Again, in the spirit of Beantown, I explained the situation to the 61 Alliance Captain, who told me that he expected them to put the broken robot on the field, which I honored, as it was the rule. The 61 Alliance won match three, advancing into the finals.

The only other incident was in the finals between match one and match two. The 61 Alliance had declared 61 and 1100 as the two teams for match two. 1100 was making repairs to their robot at the side of the field. I informed the 61 Alliance Captain at the three minute mark, that he had a minute to field the robot -- and also gave him a heads up at the 3:30 mark. Each time I was told "We are ready - it will just be another second." At 4:30 I told him he could no longer field the robot, and that I was starting the match. He told me he wanted a time-out, and I explained to him that a time-out had to be declared within the first three minutes after the previous match was finished. He then asked me if I would ask the other Alliance Captain if they would allow it. Again, in the spirit of competition and Beantown Blitz, I honored the request. The other Alliance Captain declined to allow it. When I returned to the 61 Alliance captain to inform him he said "Thank you, I guess fair is fair".

So.... that is what really happened during the finals on Saturday.

Lastly, your accusations that the rule changes were made by me to favor any specific team, is completely ludicrous. I refuse to even address that, other that to let you know that those rule changes on hanging and placing the 10 pt balls on the field were made by the Beantown Blitz Committee, and not me.

Enough said... this the last I have to say on this subject (excepting if the slander continues).

Aidan

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

My definition of sportsmanlike would be following the rules, so if that "replacement team" had already played a game, it was MORE sportsmanlike to not let the replacement play. If the replacement was allowed to play, then it would just show that the "unsportsmanlike" team caved in to this kind of pressure and aided the breaking of a rule.

And, in the first place, like Andy Baker said, the opposing team should not have been asked at all. The refs know enough to follow the rules - that's what they're there for!

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

From what I see, Cool Down, Let go of all the grudges.. Its just an Off-Season. Moreover, its a competition, unintended things happen. Unfortunate things happen. Just let go of them. I agree there we some ungracious things, but just forgive and forget. When we go out to competitions, we make good friends with teams around us. The reason is we never go out there just to win, to make friends, to have some fun, and have some memorable experience. Thats what its all about. I know we upset the crowd at PARC, but they were very forgiving(365 - MOE, 1403 - Cougar robotics). So the ultimate message is.. cool down.. have fun... and now smile because I have encoded this message to take a picture of your face :D

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

Yes. Quite so.

My first post I wrote based on no premise. I would like to comment on this specific incident.
1474 was already pushing it as it was. They were placing a great deal of pressure on the refs and 61. I stand behind the refs decision. You (1474 & co.) may feel differently, however, you must realize the pressure you place on others. Not to mention the whole Sportsmanship thing is vague.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

this was an off season event?

a exposition match?

a chance for local people who might be thinking of starting teams, or being sponsors, to see the robots in action

and people are quoting chapter and verse of the rule book

and screaming at each other?

wow! what do we expect to accomplish by doing this

what are we expo'ing about FIRST?

expo matches use to be a chance to let you hair down, let your 3rd string team drive, heck let your little brother drive - talk to people about FIRST, make those mods you wanted to but couldnt cause you bot would be 5 lbs overweight.....

things have changed. :c(

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

Well its funny because we were involved with something like this at the Palmetto Regional. In the finals, our alliance and the opposing alliance had each won a match. We get all set to go and the MC comes over to talk to our whole alliance. He tells us that because, i think it was 271, wasn't on the field at the time they announced their team, the rule said they couldnt play. He left it up to us to decide whether they should play or not. We let them play wanting to, if we won, win legitly. In the long run we won the regional, but I think everyone was pleased with our alliances decision.

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

In any competition there are bad calls, bad breaks and just plain injustices...I always try to remember a few sage words from my good friend Gary Dillard:

"...ya gotta just leave it on the field..."

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

I believe the rule is that a robot can run every match, but the other two robots must play at least one match apiece. Or in otherwords the picking team and one of the two teams picked can play; the next match the other team that didn't play MUST play with one of the two teams that played previously.

-Pat

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

Guys please for a minuet dont think of me as the Bean Town Blitz head scorekeeper but please think of me as just another FIRST'er...

[minuet of being normal] Guys this is an off season event, we had a top notch crew with top notch teams competing. This was one of the best events where for the first time it ran almost flawlessly. i think what happened there should be left in the mathews arena and that you should forget about some things. Everyone including the refs are human and should not be judged days later on a single call or 2 that were made. This was a very busy weekend for all and please just stop with the slander and the bashing of people that were there. Lets just accept whats occured this past weekend and move on. I hope to see you all later at different events and hope not to see this be brought up again... [/mobn]

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

First, I want to say I had a great time at BTB - I was a field reset person (my first volunteer position) - Thanks Erin and all for organizing the event...

To the subject... I was not looking forward to this thread expecting it to get rather negative, but I must say that having read the responses my attitude has changed - I am able to understand more of what transpired and was presented a perspective that I hadn't even thought about (Andy B's).

I was dissappointed when it was announced that the third robot was not going to be allowed to replace a broken robot. My automatic assumption, having heard the "gracious professionalism" mantra over my three years in FIRST, was that the alliance should have been able to replace a broken robot. This partly comes from my viewing the reason for having three teams in the finals is to have a safety net in case of a damaged robot - the competition can continue on a level playing field. I've also discovered that I am a bit ignorant on the fine details of the final rounds rules as I don't get to attend many regionals. I held the opinion that Team 61 was not practicing gracious professionalism in their decision until I read Andys response... my opinion was changed by his reasoning as I hadn't viewed it as asking someone to break the rules.

Being a lurker on the Delphi forums I often read posts of people requesting solutions rather than complaints, so here are mine:

1) If it is stated in the rules that the ref can ask the opposing team this robot replacement question, remove it - as Andy stated in his post. I would rather see teams upset with a ref(s) (no offense Aidan) than an entire team, as I believe adversity against a ref will be easily forgotten, but against a team will linger.

2) It seems to me that there should be someway that a third robot can be placed when a scheduled robot in not operable. Perhaps a handicap/penatly can be applied to the round where this is practiced - for this years game a penalty of 50-75 points might be appropriate. Also, the opposing team should be given 2 minutes to change to any robot selection they desire to counter this change.

3) Although Aidan told us in his reply that he communicated the passing time limits frequently to the Team 61 captain I think for the benefit of the audience and all teams members there should be some central countdown clock for these inbetween round times. I believe my solution would be enjoyed by all as it utilizes the BIG RED BUTTONS. Create a kiosk/tower with a field clock module , two field lights (red and blue), and three BRBs. The head ref upon waving his hand in the air to signal to the field reset crew to begin would immediately walk over and press the center BRB. The clock would begin counting down the normal interval period. During the first 3 minutes any personnel from either of the two alliances could come over and press their approriate BRB to indicate the desire for a time out - their team color light would begin flashing and the extra time out minutes would be added to the clock. At the end of the countdown the foghorn would sound and if a robot is not on the field the match will proceed without it.


Merle Yoder
Mentor
Team Paragon 571

Re: A Question on Sportsmanship
 

Most people have gotten their say in. If you have more to add, PM me with the content of your post, and to which post you are replying to, and I will possibly open the thread back up for you.