Elimination Time-Outs: or Gracious Professionalism vs. The Schedule

[theun4gven]

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?

[Rick-906]

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

[Cory]

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.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Cory

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.

Is dishonesty the best policy to combat hypocrisy?

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Is dishonesty the best policy to combat hypocrisy?

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."

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Is dishonesty the best policy to combat hypocrisy?

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.

[shtylman]

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.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Cory

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.

The rule states there are NO CASCADING TIME OUTS (PERIOD). Meaning even if you need it, too bad.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Ricksta121

The rule states there are NO CASCADING TIME OUTS (PERIOD). Meaning even if you need it, too bad.

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?

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Ricksta121

The rule states there are NO CASCADING TIME OUTS (PERIOD). Meaning even if you need it, too bad.

Originally Posted by Billfred

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?

That's the way I read it. They don't want 12 minutes down-time.

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?

[Paul Copioli]

Guys,

this has been the rule for at least two years. FIRST just reworded the rule to try to make it more clear. I guess it worked. I was an announcer at many regionals the last few years and the rule was very specific to the refs: Only one timeout during any given use. If blue takes theirs, then red would have to wait until after the next match. This has been the rule ... so you can't get around it even if you lie and say you need it, too. Only one timeout at a time.

-Paul

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Guys,

this has been the rule for at least two years. FIRST just reworded the rule to try to make it more clear. I guess it worked. I was an announcer at many regionals the last few years and the rule was very specific to the refs: Only one timeout during any given use. If blue takes theirs, then red would have to wait until after the next match. This has been the rule ... so you can't get around it even if you lie and say you need it, too. Only one timeout at a time.

-Paul

Then the refs were just lax the times I saw teams do this last year and the year before? Wow.

EDIT: As is not the case with many of my posts, this one is not intended to have any sarcasm at all. I am just astounded that a rule was so openly defied. I guess it's probably because a lot of people *myself included* had no Idea that this rule existed with this intent. Thank you, Paul, for pointing out that it has existed for two years.

[Taylor]

After the allotted 6 minutes expire, the alliance does have the opportunity to call on a substitute team, correct? So it should always be 3 on 3, not 3 on 2.5. If that alliance goes on to win, there would be 4 champs, the three originals and the sub, right?

[theun4gven]

Actually a team only has 4 minutes of their allotted timeout to determine if they need to call on their backup team, because they have to turn in their backup team coupon with at least two minutes remaining.

From what has been posted, it is my understanding that this has been the rule for at least two years now. I also know that their were cases last year where cascading time-outs were allowed. I find it interesting that refs would knowingly ignore a rule and that it would be mentioned during kickoff this year as a fine example of GP. I believe this rule goes against GP and the spirit of the games and I'd like to see it changed.



<T21> If during a TIME-OUT an ALLIANCE CAPTAIN determines that they need to call up a
BACKUP TEAM, they must submit their BACKUP TEAM coupon to the Head Referee
while there is still at least two minutes remaining on the Time-out Clock. After that point,
they will not be allowed to utilize the BACKUP TEAM. Alternatively, an ALLIANCE
CAPTAIN may choose to call up a BACKUP TEAM without using their TIME-OUT by
informing the Head Referee directly within two minutes of the Head Referee issuing the
Field Reset Signal preceding their match.

[kawelch]

[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.