A Question on Sportsmanship

[Aidan F. Browne]

Mike --

I don't know what you are doing, or why you are doing it -- but your two posts are full of fictitious slander -- which I will not accept from you.

For some reason that I do not understand, you seem extremely bitter about something that happened at Beantown Blitz. That became obvious on Saturday, when you came over to me during the finals and started screaming at me about the fact that you didn't like the call and that I should call by the rules. (which, imho, was extremely ingracious behaviour) The fact is Mike -- that I did call by the rules -- as I'm sure you have figured out by now, it was you that were not aware of the rules -- don't get on my case for that.

Now, the truth as to what happened:

As Mike stated, there was a disqualification called on the 61 Alliance for intentional tipping in the first match of the SF. Thats a fact - its the way it happened - it was a unamimous decision by the ref crew. Enough said there.

Both alliance captains declared which robots were playing in match two - as they were required. Four minutes after the end of the first match, the 1474 Alliance was not yet on the field -- I went to the alliance captain to find out why, and he informed me that they had called a time out for team 175 to be repaired -- I told them he had not told me -- he said he had told the field attendant -- which I verified. Although that was a mistake on the Alliance Captain's part, I gave him the benefit of the doubt - decided there were three minutes left in his timeout, and went to inform the 61 Alliance Captain of the situation. At the end of the timeout, team 175 was not ready, I, per the rules, did not allow them onto the field. As that discussion was taking place with the Alliance Captain, team 175 became ready. The Alliance Captain asked me if I would ask the other Alliance if they could still put the robot on the field. Although I was clear on the rule, I decided, in the sprit of the off-season competition, to honor his request. When I asked the 61 Alliance Captain, he said he wanted to consult with his coach, then immedicately came back to me with his decision not to allow leeway of the rules. At that point, I was ready to start the match, when it was brought to my attention, that the crowd was thoroughly confused. I took a mic and explained to the crowd exactly what had just transpired, in a completely unbiased manner. Then I immediately started the match. The 61 Alliance won that match, forcing a third match.

As we were setting up for the third match, the 1474 Alliance Captain ran up to me - stating that he had declared 1474 and 839 as the two teams to play in match three, however, at the time he had made that declaration, he was not aware that team 839 had blown a drive motor, and was unable to move. He wanted to swap 175 with 839. I informed him that he was past the time limit to do so, and he again pleaded with me to ask the other Alliance. Again, in the spirit of Beantown, I explained the situation to the 61 Alliance Captain, who told me that he expected them to put the broken robot on the field, which I honored, as it was the rule. The 61 Alliance won match three, advancing into the finals.

The only other incident was in the finals between match one and match two. The 61 Alliance had declared 61 and 1100 as the two teams for match two. 1100 was making repairs to their robot at the side of the field. I informed the 61 Alliance Captain at the three minute mark, that he had a minute to field the robot -- and also gave him a heads up at the 3:30 mark. Each time I was told "We are ready - it will just be another second." At 4:30 I told him he could no longer field the robot, and that I was starting the match. He told me he wanted a time-out, and I explained to him that a time-out had to be declared within the first three minutes after the previous match was finished. He then asked me if I would ask the other Alliance Captain if they would allow it. Again, in the spirit of competition and Beantown Blitz, I honored the request. The other Alliance Captain declined to allow it. When I returned to the 61 Alliance captain to inform him he said "Thank you, I guess fair is fair".

So.... that is what really happened during the finals on Saturday.

Lastly, your accusations that the rule changes were made by me to favor any specific team, is completely ludicrous. I refuse to even address that, other that to let you know that those rule changes on hanging and placing the 10 pt balls on the field were made by the Beantown Blitz Committee, and not me.

Enough said... this the last I have to say on this subject (excepting if the slander continues).

Aidan

[Bharat Nain]

From what I see, Cool Down, Let go of all the grudges.. Its just an Off-Season. Moreover, its a competition, unintended things happen. Unfortunate things happen. Just let go of them. I agree there we some ungracious things, but just forgive and forget. When we go out to competitions, we make good friends with teams around us. The reason is we never go out there just to win, to make friends, to have some fun, and have some memorable experience. Thats what its all about. I know we upset the crowd at PARC, but they were very forgiving(365 - MOE, 1403 - Cougar robotics). So the ultimate message is.. cool down.. have fun... and now smile because I have encoded this message to take a picture of your face

[Astronouth7303]

Not great sportsmanship. Assuming that the other side (the one with the broke bot) was not being deceptive, etc., such behavor is opposite to the spirit of FIRST.

[Andy Grady]

A few questions on what happened before I form an opinion.

Its been said that in the first match, Buzz was broken. They asked 61 if they could be replaced by their partner for the second match? My understanding is, you shouldn't have to ask the other team who can play, just as long as the team who didn't play before is in the round. The only situation where you can get a 2 on 1 is that which the 3rd team (the team who hadn't played the first round) was not available for the second match. Can you clarify this? The second question is, did team 61 use a timeout in the elimination rounds before they asked for one in the finals?

[Mike Norton]

Originally Posted by Andy Grady

A few questions on what happened before I form an opinion.

Its been said that in the first match, Buzz was broken. They asked 61 if they could be replaced by their partner for the second match? My understanding is, you shouldn't have to ask the other team who can play, just as long as the team who didn't play before is in the round. The only situation where you can get a 2 on 1 is that which the 3rd team (the team who hadn't played the first round) was not available for the second match. Can you clarify this? The second question is, did team 61 use a timeout in the elimination rounds before they asked for one in the finals?

they told the ref which team where going to be on the field which was buzz. while they were trying to fix the robot and ran out of time then they asked for the other robot to be placed on. We said no. then they called for a time out. then when they could fix it in the time alloted we waitted until they did have a machine partly fix by then 10 mins had gone by and we said no

team 61 never called a time out. I just found out that the ref indeed ask the other team if it would be all right to let or teammate put their robot on the field and they told him no. We did not here the head ref say that on the PA system.

[Tom Schindler]

With reguard to the situation that Mike and others are talking about:

The teams had to tell me which robots were going on 4 minutes before their match started. Team 1474 told me that it was going to be buzz and another robot that was going in. I wrote this down, then went over to ask the 61 alliance which robots would be going in. The second both alliances told me what robots were going in, their decision was final.

In this particular situation, 61 did have the choice whether or not to allow the broken robot to be fixed, or to allow the other robot from buzz's alliance to go in place of buzz. But this was still a choice. If 61 had wanted to, they probably could have called their timeout and let buzz compete, but the chose not to. They could have had incredible sportsmanship, but they definitely were not poor sports by say no to the head ref's question.

That being said, there were several other instances of poor sportsmanship i overheard/witnessed, but the major one had to do with the attitudes and actions of team members after a critical decision by the reffign crew. The head referee's decision should never be mocked... the head referee has a very difficult job to do, especially in situations such as this one.

Besides these small problems, the professionalism shown by the competitors in boston was amazing. All of the teams i spoke to during the finals and qualifications were very courteous and seemed to be happy to be there.

Can't wait for beantown blitz II!

Tom Schindler

[Brandon Holley]

Well its funny because we were involved with something like this at the Palmetto Regional. In the finals, our alliance and the opposing alliance had each won a match. We get all set to go and the MC comes over to talk to our whole alliance. He tells us that because, i think it was 271, wasn't on the field at the time they announced their team, the rule said they couldnt play. He left it up to us to decide whether they should play or not. We let them play wanting to, if we won, win legitly. In the long run we won the regional, but I think everyone was pleased with our alliances decision.

[EricS-Team180]

In any competition there are bad calls, bad breaks and just plain injustices...I always try to remember a few sage words from my good friend Gary Dillard:

"...ya gotta just leave it on the field..."

[Merle]

First, I want to say I had a great time at BTB - I was a field reset person (my first volunteer position) - Thanks Erin and all for organizing the event...

To the subject... I was not looking forward to this thread expecting it to get rather negative, but I must say that having read the responses my attitude has changed - I am able to understand more of what transpired and was presented a perspective that I hadn't even thought about (Andy B's).

I was dissappointed when it was announced that the third robot was not going to be allowed to replace a broken robot. My automatic assumption, having heard the "gracious professionalism" mantra over my three years in FIRST, was that the alliance should have been able to replace a broken robot. This partly comes from my viewing the reason for having three teams in the finals is to have a safety net in case of a damaged robot - the competition can continue on a level playing field. I've also discovered that I am a bit ignorant on the fine details of the final rounds rules as I don't get to attend many regionals. I held the opinion that Team 61 was not practicing gracious professionalism in their decision until I read Andys response... my opinion was changed by his reasoning as I hadn't viewed it as asking someone to break the rules.

Being a lurker on the Delphi forums I often read posts of people requesting solutions rather than complaints, so here are mine:

1) If it is stated in the rules that the ref can ask the opposing team this robot replacement question, remove it - as Andy stated in his post. I would rather see teams upset with a ref(s) (no offense Aidan) than an entire team, as I believe adversity against a ref will be easily forgotten, but against a team will linger.

2) It seems to me that there should be someway that a third robot can be placed when a scheduled robot in not operable. Perhaps a handicap/penatly can be applied to the round where this is practiced - for this years game a penalty of 50-75 points might be appropriate. Also, the opposing team should be given 2 minutes to change to any robot selection they desire to counter this change.

3) Although Aidan told us in his reply that he communicated the passing time limits frequently to the Team 61 captain I think for the benefit of the audience and all teams members there should be some central countdown clock for these inbetween round times. I believe my solution would be enjoyed by all as it utilizes the BIG RED BUTTONS. Create a kiosk/tower with a field clock module , two field lights (red and blue), and three BRBs. The head ref upon waving his hand in the air to signal to the field reset crew to begin would immediately walk over and press the center BRB. The clock would begin counting down the normal interval period. During the first 3 minutes any personnel from either of the two alliances could come over and press their approriate BRB to indicate the desire for a time out - their team color light would begin flashing and the extra time out minutes would be added to the clock. At the end of the countdown the foghorn would sound and if a robot is not on the field the match will proceed without it.


Merle Yoder
Mentor
Team Paragon 571

[Pat Fairbank]

Originally Posted by Astronouth7303

Not great sportsmanship. Assuming that the other side (the one with the broke bot) was not being deceptive, etc., such behavor is opposite to the spirit of FIRST.

I disagree. While I agree that when the opposing team denies the other team the chance to repair their robot they are not particularly doing a gracious deed to that team, there is nothing ungracious or unsportsmanlike about their choice. It's not as if they intentionally did something to harm the other team. You must remember that FIRST is a competition, and while letting the other team fix their robot is a very gracious gesture, at the same time it is unfair to the other members of the team who made the decision, their allies, and their supporters, because it takes away an extra chance to succeed that was gained fairly.

This same situation did in fact occur during a regional event this year, at the Canadian Regional. During the quarterfinals, one of our opponents broke down, used up their time out, and then wanted to switch robots. The refs came to me, the alliance captain, to make the call (something, as Andy Baker pointed out, which shouldn't have taken place since the rules are clear) and I decided, not wanting to let down the rest of my team and our alliance partners, to not allow the switch. I have not regretted my decision in the time since then, and neither I nor the mentors on my team regarded this choice as being unsportsmanlike.

[Karthik]

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.

[Amanda Morrison]

These types of situations are always awkward. I feel that Karthik is very right here, and posted my opinions better than I could ever say.

I don't believe in 'guilting' another team into sharing their professionalism - professionalism is something you display on your own, not something to be asked for.

[Marc P.]

If this thread is referring to what I think it is, then the match in question was in the finals. The finalists were 571, 61, and 1100 on one side, with 181, 126, and 178 on the other. As I recall, 571 and 61 played match 1, and won. The rules state that each robot in an alliance must play at least one match. 61 and 571 had already played, so both could not play in match 2. I'm not sure what happened on 1100's end (I think due to technical difficulties they couldn't get their bot ready in time), but they were unable to field their robot for match 2. From what I heard, it sounded like the question was asked whether 61 could play the second match. I guess the refs enforced the rules and said no, 61 could not play with 571, because both had played in the previous match. I was sitting at the scoring table with Dez, so I didn't hear any of the conversations, but I think the head ref got on the mic to explain what was happening.

What happened then was an incredible show of determination on 571's part... In match 2, two robots vs. one, the score ended up tied, 70-70 (571's amazing ball handling enabled them to score enough balls to counter a hanging robot and 4 balls from the other alliance). In the finals though, ties are not allowed. A match that ends in a tie must be replayed- so the match didn't count as anything for either side. By the time that match was over though, 1100 was ready for action, and stepped in for match 2 second edition. As I recall, 181, 126, 178 won that match, something like 85-70 (Interestingly, 571 and 1100 scored the exact same number of balls as 571 did themselves in the previous match).

So ultimately 571, 61, and 1100 took match 3 (don't remember the score), and ended up winning the first Beantown Blitz. The whole day was filled with exciting matches- especially the eliminations. Even though we didn't see any high score records (highest score was 180), the matches were filled with more than enough offensive and defensive action to make them exciting! Kudos to all the teams involved, and to Erin, Aidan, Dez, Tom, and all the volunteers who made it such a great event!

My definition of sportsmanlike would be following the rules, so if that "replacement team" had already played a game, it was MORE sportsmanlike to not let the replacement play. If the replacement was allowed to play, then it would just show that the "unsportsmanlike" team caved in to this kind of pressure and aided the breaking of a rule.

And, in the first place, like Andy Baker said, the opposing team should not have been asked at all. The refs know enough to follow the rules - that's what they're there for!

[Astronouth7303]

Originally Posted by SilverStar

And, in the first place, like Andy Baker said, the opposing team should not have been asked at all. The refs know enough to follow the rules - that's what they're there for!

Yes. Quite so.

My first post I wrote based on no premise. I would like to comment on this specific incident.
1474 was already pushing it as it was. They were placing a great deal of pressure on the refs and 61. I stand behind the refs decision. You (1474 & co.) may feel differently, however, you must realize the pressure you place on others. Not to mention the whole Sportsmanship thing is vague.