A Question on Sportsmanship

[Steve M]

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?

[sanddrag]

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

[MrToast]

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?

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

[Steve M]

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.

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

[MrToast]

Originally Posted by Steve M

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

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

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by MrToast

I believe the rule is that any one robot can't play more than 2 games per round.

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.

[Pat Roche]

Originally Posted by MrToast

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

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

[dez250]

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]

[Andy Baker]

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 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.

[Mike Norton]

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.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Steve M

...I witnessed one alliance refusing to let the opposing alliance replace a malfuntioning robot with their third member...

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.

[Steve M]

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

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.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

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.

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.

[Astronouth7303]

: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.

[Andy Grady]

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