Time-Outs, Give it or keep it?

[hopkins]

I talked to a bunch of people at Detroit about this and got mixed answers. So this is the situation, in the finals, the other alliance has a problem with their robot, is trying to fix it, has already used their timeout, and your alliance still has their own timeout card. It is only the semi finals so there are still a few matches left if you don't get eliminated.

Should you call a time out to give the other alliance a chance, or keep it for your alliance just in case?

I myself would give it away in a second because i would rather play a fair match than a 2 against 3 any day, and it just seems like a perfect example of gracious professionalism. Some people though, thought that it isn't cruel to keep it for yourself, and you shouldn't feel pressured to give it away.

Say whats on your mind/ what you would have done.

[IndySam]

Can't have back-to-back time outs.

This used to happen a lot but it would really delay an event so they put a stop to it.

<T19> There are no cascading time-outs. An opposing ALLIANCE may not offer their unused TIME-OUT to their opponent.

[Danny McC]

Well don't they usually have a time in between matches in the finals for fixing the robot. And I think that if you use a time out and you can't get it fixed with the other time given to you that you might not be able to fix it even if the other alliance use their time out. If back to back timeouts were allowed.

[GaryVoshol]

Let's clarify the situation. The alliance in question had to use their time-out in the Quarter-finals. It's now the 2nd SEMI-final match, your underdog alliance has already won Semi-final #1, and the robot in question is now broken again. While the other Semi-final match was played, they were working on the robot, but it's still broken - fixable, but they need more time.

So, do you call your time-out now (not back-to-back) or save it in case your alliance needs it in the Finals?

I don't see how any alliance captain can be faulted for either decision.

[Joe Ross]

At SVR, the blue alliance in the finals used a timeout for the red alliance. The red alliance had used their timeout a few matches earlier, so it was not a back-to-back timeout situation.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by IndySam

<T19> There are no cascading time-outs. An opposing ALLIANCE may not offer their unused TIME-OUT to their opponent.

Yeah... I asked the head ref about it, just in a hypothetical sense and he led me to <T19>. Amazingly, I don't believe any time-outs were called during eliminations at the CT Regional.

[Madison]

Back-to-back timeouts are disallowed by the rules.

Otherwise, we'd use it for them in all likelihood.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by SECTION 9 - The Tournament

<T19> 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.

While it may be the courteous thing to do, offering your TIME-OUT to your opponent is against the rules. There is no need to anguish over a chioce that was not your's to make.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

While it may be the courteous thing to do, offering your TIME-OUT to your opponent is against the rules. There is no need to anguish over a chioce that was not your's to make.

Yes. but if I, instead of offering my timeout to my opponent, use my time out to 'talk about strategy' while they repair their robot, then all is according to the rules

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Yes. but if I, instead of offering my timeout to my opponent, use my time out to 'talk about strategy' while they repair their robot, then all is according to the rules

The intent of T-19 was implied by their mention of an alliance completing their repairs. If that was indeed their intent, then perhaps they should have been more explicit, so that we would not even try to wiggle our way around it.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

The intent of T-19 was implied by their mention of an alliance completing their repairs. If that was indeed their intent, then perhaps they should have been more explicit, so that we would not even try to wiggle our way around it.

Agreed.

The GDC has a very tough job because there are a lot of very smart people out there looking at the rules.

I understand the intent of the rule, however, I Like many others want to beat our opponent when they are at their best. Winning because your opponent is broken (possibly through no fault of their own ... or even possibly because of MY team) does not make for a good spectator sport, which is what FIRST needs in order to change the culture.

In fact, I would go so far as to say I'd rather lose in the finals, and have used my timeout for my opponent, than win with my opponent having a broken 'bot. The reason is because I believe we've already won by that point ... and the competition is the celebration of our hard work and learning over the 6 weeks. to do otherwise, IMHO, lessens the gains we make and opens up the 'win at any cost' mentality.

[Jack Jones]

In my opinion, there is no however. In the interest of fair play, we must adhere to the obvious intent of the rule. It does not matter that the cause is noble, nor whether we agree with the rule, nor whether we’ll feel good about ourselves by going against it, nor whether we feel that little white lies are different from big dark ones.

It is a very slippery slope we’re on when we decide to violate the rule. A team could break down in the quarterfinals, take their time out, and then be awarded another one match later by the opposing alliance. They could enjoy the same gift in the semifinals and finals for a total of 24 minutes to repair their machine. Meanwhile, another team that was not as well known or well liked could break down and have just the six minutes allowed by the rules, maybe because their opponents had already given their time out away. The only way to insure that each and every team has the same opportunity is to obey the rule. If you want to be fair, then be fair to us all.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

The intent of T-19 was implied by their mention of an alliance completing their repairs. If that was indeed their intent, then perhaps they should have been more explicit, so that we would not even try to wiggle our way around it.

My strategy just took a full time-out to fix.

If they had said straight out, "you can't call a timeout so your opponent can repair their robots", there would be a massive protest. They are trying to stay on schedule, hence the "no cascading timeouts."

Also, if they really wanted to be explicit... I could, if I wanted to, hurt my opponent, even though they called the TO. (I don't want to.) Legally. "Their repairs" only refers to "an alliance", not "the calling alliance". Again, I wouldn't use this.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by EricH

If they had said straight out, "you can't call a timeout so your opponent can repair their robots", there would be a massive protest.

They did say that straight out.

Originally Posted by <T19>

...An opposing ALLIANCE may not offer their unused TIME-OUT to their opponent.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

They did say that straight out.

And there were complaints until someone pointed out that you can call it to repair your own robots. Same effect, different methods.

And it isn't enforced under the new method.