Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
 

Since the allinace of 296, 217, and 522 were the recipients of the GP mentioned in the Kickoff, let me clear up some things immediately.

1. Only 1 time out was called during that time frame (legal then, legal now).

2. We called the time out, not them. They gave us the #25 chain 296 needed since 217 and 522 used #35 chain and had none to give.

3. If they called the timeout for us (because we did not have one), that was legal then and legal now. What is not legal is for them to call one after us to gain an additional 6 minutes. Thet was also not allowed last year. If some regionals allowed it, then your teams got lucky.

4. What they are clarifying this year are two things:
a. No cascading timeouts as it was clearly confusing last year.
b. SInce you now have coupons, it would have been perceived that a team that got knoked out before they used the coupon could give it to another team. The GDC cleared that up so that you only get one per alliance. A team can't give their coupon to another team. An opposing alliance can call their timeout for the other team, but a team sitting on the sideline can't give their coupon to an alliance competing on the field.

This clarification is to make sure only one timeout is alloted per alliance and to make sure only one timeout maximum is used per match.

Here is a link to another post regarding this same topic earlier: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=51111

My post is post #10.

Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
 

I have to disagree here. The teams competing in the elimination matches have earned their right to be there either by being top teams and getting to pick their alliance or by displaying qualities that are advantageous to a choosing alliance.

Matches can be punishing on a robot and over time things break. FIRST allows for this by allowing time-outs in the first place. During qualifying matches, teams tend to have ample time to fix problems that occur and time-outs help to remedy this situation for elimination matches. Six minutes is not a lot of time, but it may be the difference between competing in a match or not competing because you have a functioning robot that needed a minute more to replace a sprocket that is back in the pits.

I am not saying that your team didn't earn a chance to compete, we too have been passed over for teams that we didn't feel warranted a selection over ourselves, I am just saying that if six minutes is enough time to fix a problem between a match, and an alliance is willing to give up their own time-out to allow this, then this the ideal of gracious professionalism at work and completely within the spirit of the competition. And if six minutes isn't enough, the next backup team has now earned itself a second chance to compete for robotics glory.

Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
 

I don't like it when I see the phrase "gracious professionalism" flung around without first examining the situation very, very closely and objectively. I think we need to be a bit more careful in that regard with this discussion. What actions/rules do or do not constitute "gracious professionalism" is very subjective, making it poor fodder for an objective, non-emotionally driven argument.

One can look at this particular rule from many different angles with regards to "gracious professionalism". One could say that this rule does embody GP because it allows all alliances to have the same amount of time to fix their robot in between matches. Yes, it may seem "GP" to the spectators when an alliance allows their opponents extra time by taking another time out, but how fair is that to the other alliances on the field? They might not be lucky enough to be given extra time by their opponents, and they would be put at a disadvantage. Did you ever consider that perspective before calling out the rule as "un-GP"?

I'm sorry if the above came off as sounding harsh, but please - next time you are discussing a rule, can you please leave the GP phrase out of it? Stick to the specific implications of the rule when supporting your argument. It is completely inappropriate to judge a rule as being "un-GP" when you haven't yet considered every side to the story and all the facts surrounding the situation.

A recent example - the recent blizzard caused many teams to complain that FIRST should have extended the ship date. I felt that alot of people posted inappropriately, saying that "if FIRST had any GP, they would extend the deadline." A better way to go about this (which many other people did properly), would be to discuss and present arguments using the particular facts of the situation in calm and reasonable manner. It was also important to consider FIRST's perspective, reasoning, and response to the situation before labeling it's actions as "un-GP".

So, with regards to this rule, I think people need to step back and consider that perhaps this rule is (arguably, anyways) fair because it gives everyone the same amount of time to fix their robot. Just as FIRST gives everyone six weeks to build their robot - they also want to make sure that no alliance is given an unfair advantage over the other at the competition. It is not in fact "gracious" to try to circumvent this rule, because it's not fair to the rest of the competitors.

-- Jaine

Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
 

You can't make that assumption. There's no guarantee you would have been called up even if the timeout hadn't been available. The other robot may have competed with reduced functionality, or possibly just sat there and done nothing.

I can certainly see a situation where an alliance would choose to compete in a quarter or semifinal round with one robot broken in hopes that said robot will be repaired in time for the finals, rather than permanently replacing that robot with a backup which may not fit well into the alliance's strategy.

Teams are on the standby list just in case an alliance chooses to make use of them. There is nothing saying that they automatically have a right to compete if someone else breaks.

Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
 

Many of the Refs have been refs for years. Cascading timeouts have been common and indeed practically expected for years. I know that at least one instance occured in the dark ages before Alliances. It is not suprising that a field crew should over look this rule, because we are creatures of habit. Unless somebody specifically pointed it out, it would be easy to miss. The wording last year was also less than clear.

This year they decided to make real sure that EVERYBODY paid attention to a rule that all hoped would never be needed. That is why they brought it up at Kickoff, to make it unavoidable.

Speaking as a competitor, I am sad to see the opportunity for this gesture go away. My team has personally benefited from this behavior. When I thanked the other Alliance for it they replied "But you would have done the same for us" and they were probably right.

But now that I am more involved with organizing the event, I see more clearly how the extra time outs are drags on the audience's patience. I don't know about your teams but we have huge family support. Everybody comes, from 8-week old younger siblings to grandparents. It is hard for some of them to sit through 15 minutes with nothing happening.

Having awards in between matches helps a lot, but those have to be scheduled as well. You can't just say "hey they just called another time-out, bring up the Animation awards early" That messes up the planned "fillers" for the later matches where they are more needed.

The competition is a show, it has to move to have legs. Dead time for any reason has to be avoided. That is why they put in the rule last year and why they made it more clear this year. While it is certainly Gracious to your opponent to allow them more time for repairs, is it Professional to do so? or Gracious to the audience? These things also need to be considered.

Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
 

Over this years, giving the other alliance your timeout has turned from a very gracious action, to a basically expected one. Honestly you do not really have a choice, because if you DIDNT give them your timeout you were being "un-GP".

I have given another alliance our timeout to let them compete and it is a good thing, but I think FIRST is right in making this rule. Its not right for teams that do not need to use their timeouts to have to give theirs up to make them not look like jerks.

As unfortunate as it may be to have your robot breakdown and not be completely repaired by the end of your timeout, its just the way life is sometimes.

Given if the other alliance is still in it after completing a match without full functionality, you are probably going to give up your timeout anyway...

Good luck everyone.