|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
In the last few years, if an Alliance has used up their time-out during the elimination but still needs more time to perform a fix, the opposing Alliance has usually given up their own time-out to give everyone a few more minutes. The announcers have always made a big deal out of this, and it was even mentioned during the Kick Off ceremony this year as a sign of Gracious Professionalism in action.
Well, apparently FIRST has had enough of that nonsense and instituted an addendum to the timeout rule; <T20> In the elimination matches, each ALLIANCE will be allotted one TIME-OUT of up to 6 minutes. If an ALLIANCE wishes to call for a TIME OUT, they must submit their TIME OUT coupon to the Head Referee within two minutes of the Head Referee issuing the field reset signal preceding their match. When this occurs, the Time-out Clock will count down the six minutes starting with the expiration of the arena-reset period. Both ALLIANCES will enjoy the complete 6-minute window. In the interest of tournament schedule, if an ALLIANCE completes their repairs before the Time-out Clock expires, the ALLIANCE CAPTAIN is encouraged to inform the Head Referee that they are ready to play and remit any time remaining in the TIME-OUT. If ALLIANCES are ready before the 6-minute window, the next match will start. There are no cascading time-outs. An opposing ALLIANCE may not offer their unused TIME-OUT to their opponent. This didn't seem to greatly extend the length of the tournaments, did help out a couple of teams throughout the season, and wasn't abused in any circumstances that I know of. I know I would rather lose a great match then beat an alliance because they were denied a few more minutes to fix a robot, so why would it seem that FIRST is putting gracious professionalism behind sticking to the schedule and getting done a relatively insignificant amount of time sooner? |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
i agree, that time out has saved many a good team that got damaged...
it seems contrary to the spirit of the competition to do this |
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
There's an easy way around the rule... just look over, if theyre still madly working after their timeout ends, tell the head ref you'd like to take your timeout to let your motors cool, upload some code and change autonomous mode, go get a snack, whatever. They can't tell you you can't take your timeout, unless you tell them you're taking it for the other team.
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
In this case, yes it would be. In other cases, such as getting through pointless paperwork systems in the schools, no, not at all.
However, for this case, It's entirely different. FIRST is saying "no, you can't be nice and promote GP by having a good fair match, because we need those extra 6 minutes." |
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
In general, no. But absolutely nobody is hurt by doing so in this case. As a spectator or a competitor, I'd much rather see the competition run 10 minutes longer to see an exciting finals match, instead of one alliance getting creamed because their bot broke and then couldn't finish repairing it, when the other alliance was perfectly willing to give up their timeout.
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
Saying that you need time to let your motors cool or whatnot to allow the other team to work is not wrong/lying/ or bad in any way. I approach it the same way I approach return policies. They have given you a timeout to use; it isn't any of their business what you are using it for, it is yours to use. That's my though on the matter.
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
[quote=Cory;583634] But absolutely nobody is hurt by doing so in this case. /QUOTE]
No one gets hurt? My team was first back-up team in a regional when a bot broke... we were ready to compete and were a higher rank than some of the teams competing... the other Alliance calls a time out giving an additional six minutes. The bot was repaired and the match concluded. We were left out because the no cascade rule was not followed... but hey no one got hurt. |
|
#9
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
Quote:
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. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
Quote:
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. |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 Last edited by Jaine Perotti : 22-02-2007 at 12:16. Reason: tried to make it less harsh-sounding |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
Quote:
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. |
|
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
Quote:
|
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
The way I understand "cascading time-outs", it's that they can't finish a time-out and then have us immediately call one of our own; a match would have to be played. Is this remotely correct?
|
|
#15
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule
Quote:
Quote:
Now if you play a match and the part that your opponent desperately fixed in the previous 6 minutes still isn't performing well, then you use your time out to "fix" something on your robot. Maybe you have to suddenly "discover" a problem that needs fixing. Is it going around the letter of the rule? Yes. But what is more gracious? Everyone should comment in the summer wrap-up meetings that we should be allowed to help out our opponents. They can keep the cascading ban, but why oh why would we want to see the last match on Einstein as a 2.5 vs 3? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| In the spirit of Gracious Professionalism, I give you: My MultiDrive. | Sachiel7 | Technical Discussion | 6 | 14-11-2003 19:59 |
| Gracious Professionalism carries the day at UTC | archiver | 2001 | 5 | 24-06-2002 01:43 |
| Gracious Professionalism? | archiver | 1999 | 0 | 23-06-2002 23:04 |
| Gracious professionalism and the NYC regional | Jessica358 | Thanks and/or Congrats | 1 | 24-03-2002 12:46 |