Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steve M
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?
|
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.