A few thoughts on gracious proffesionalism by a rookie mentor...

[Tom Bishop]

Last year we were rammed, pushed, harried, pinned, crashed into the rack, and generally knocked around at every opportunity. That's fine, it was part of the game.

In this year's game defense, compared to the year's before, was much more subtle. This year defense consisted of knocking opponents ball's down, delaying other teams from hurdling, knocking balls away from and out of opponents possession, protecting balls on the rack in the end game (sometimes by pushing, sometimes by sitting there), among other strategies. Vigorous interaction should be expected, designed for, and played. This is also fine, it's part of the game.

As others have stated, without defense FIRST games become an unexciting exhibition. On the field we compete like crazy to win, but we do so in a respectful manner. We help teams having trouble by getting their robots moving. We give each other tools and parts, programming and technical expertise. But on the field make sure your head is screwed on tight, because the opposing alliance will do everything it can to legally win.

Of course, deliberately damaging another robot is against the rules, and is very unGP. But it is difficult to judge intent when it is "your baby" out there being bashed around. Difficult for us, and difficult for the refs. It would also be GP to give teams the benefit of a doubt, and assume that their tactics are within the scope of the rules, as long as the regs don't warn, yellow card, or DQ them.

You guys had a great robot out there, and you should be proud.

[Cappeh]

As much as FIRST pushes gracious professionalism, there are always teams that play just to win. Most people won't admit it, but I've seen teams that are rude and unpolite; it's usually not the entire group, but two or three individuals that bring down their reputation for being a gracious team.

I agree, though, in the sense that some teams don't show gracious professionalism- however, playing hard defense doesn't mean that they're being ungracious. When it comes down to it, many teenagers see this as a game to play and win- it still is just a game, afterall. I do respect your opinion, however.

I believe that this year was intended to be a year for rookie teams to do just as well as veteran teams; there are many rookie teams that do not have the expertise or ability to make a highly-offensive robot. Keeping defense in the game gives them somehting that not just rookies, but any team can fall back on if their robot doesn't function properly.

Woody says that gracious professionalism is "acting how you would if you grandmother was watching you"... some people must have some really crazy grandmothers. (:

[JaneYoung]

This is just a thought that I've been carrying around for a while as I think about our rookie teams and rookie mentors - and veteran teams as well.

Perhaps the bridge foundation needs some work, strengthening.
We may have some weaknesses in areas that move from off season development through build through competition and into postmortems.

Competition, itself, is tough and I believe the game is designed for teams that compete to be able to work on many levels, not the least of which is strategy. The bridge that spans a FIRST team is Gracious Professionalism. That is not an empty phrase, it is the cornerstone of FIRST. Students and engineers and professionals working together to create a competitive team/robot/season.

I've seen posts calling for training for referees. I remember similar posts regarding inspectors. I've read posts complaining about the GDC, the venues. I've read and heard very little calling for training for Gracious Professionalism - what that is, and how it can bridge a year of FIRST for rookies and for veterans. How it continues to evolve, develop, and expand as FIRST grows and expands in every program.

When Gracious Professionalism is understood as a way of life, of how you conduct yourself, rather than a phrase to be thrown around, then it deepens the programs, the off seasons, the build season, the competitions, the networking between teams, the bridge from rookie to veteran. It also bridges the gaps between generations, positions held by students, mentors, parents, sponsors, FIRST staff.

Many rookie teams have the benefit of being mentored by veteran teams. Those veteran teams are the face of/introduction into FIRST and hopefully add strength to the bridge, helping the rookie teams move across the full season with a deepening understanding. This includes a very important part of FIRST, the robotic competition, and what it is and what it means. What its purpose is and serves. Before competition, during competition, and following competition. For rookie teams that don't have the benefit of being mentored by wise veteran teams, training in Gracious Professionalism could help this.

I understand what the OP is saying and the frustrations. I think training in this area could help in the long term. I appreciate and support a strong exciting competition that has all of us on the edge of our seats filled with awe and celebration of the teams.
Jane

[KTorak]

I don't really like the idea that there is little to no defense this year, but honestly, it's why we lost last year. We were a really stronger scoring robot at both regionals and could out score many other teams (we put up 256 at GLR!). But, we were heavy guarded in the last two finals matches and our robot ended up getting damaged making it unable to score.

However, I understand where the rules came from this year.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Tom Bishop

In this year's game defense, compared to the year's before, was much more subtle. This year defense consisted of knocking opponents ball's down, delaying other teams from hurdling, knocking balls away from and out of opponents possession, protecting balls on the rack in the end game (sometimes by pushing, sometimes by sitting there), among other strategies. Vigorous interaction should be expected, designed for, and played. This is also fine, it's part of the game.

I may have overstated my position on defense. The strategies mentioned above are all legal, and I don't have a problem with them as far as they go. However, I saw much more aggressive defensive strategies, one particular incident stands out (because it happened to us). A team rammed our bot while it was attempting to knock a ball from the overpass, causing the bot to tilt and lift it's wheels from the ground, they then backed up a few feet and waited. Every time the bot was able to disengage from the overpass, they ran forward again, ramming the bot and entangling it in the overpass. This was repeated no less than 3 times. The other bot never attempted to score during the match, it merely sat and waited for our bot to free itself from the overpass. To me, this is a blatant violation of <G37>

<G37> ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. In all cases involving ROBOT-to-ROBOT contact, the TEAM may receive a PENALTY and/or their ROBOT may be disqualified if the interaction is inappropriate or excessive.

The worst part about this particular instance is that it was totally unnecessary. At the outset of the match, our alliance partner broke a drive chain and was disabled, so the chances of our alliance winning were slim to none anyway, but it really frustrated the members of the drive team.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

I've read and heard very little calling for training for Gracious Professionalism...

How would you suggest such "training" be done? I can't see Gracious Professionalism being taught in a lecture or learned from a book. In a growing program such as FRC, one basically has to pick it up through immersion in an environment where it is expressed consistently by mentors and other role models.

The best GP training I can think of is to attend regional competitions full of Chairman's-Award-winning teams.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

How would you suggest such "training" be done? I can't see Gracious Professionalism being taught in a lecture or learned from a book. In a growing program such as FRC, one basically has to pick it up through immersion in an environment where it is expressed consistently by mentors and other role models.

The best GP training I can think of is to attend regional competitions full of Chairman's-Award-winning teams.

I agree.

I also see the need.
- The HoF comes to mind as a wonderful resource.
- Examples of what is ok and what isn't.

Teams are great at developing videos/animations that promote safety.
GP could be 'modeled' in a similar fashion.
I understand what you are saying, Alan.
I think there are ways to get the GP factor out there helping to introduce rookie teams into the FIRST community and helping veteran teams keep it fresh.

Jane

[Tom Bishop]

From what you have stated I would say that rule 37 was not violated since it has to do with "robot to robot" interaction. Entanglement is referring to another robot, not with a field element. Tipping over has to do with robot on it's side, wheels in the air. Robots can and do get tipped, but if it's not a high push, then it's likely a function of design.

However, I would agree that sitting there and deliberately pushing your bot in the position described is not in the spirit of a Gracious Professional, no matter what the rules say.

Don't let this experience sour you on FIRST. On balance, the positives far outweigh the negatives. I've been doing this 6 years now, and I have more fun every year, or so it seems. Hang in there!

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

How would you suggest such "training" be done?

I think that is relatively easy. Before every public appearance, at a competition or a public show or demonstration, we meet and talk about GP, appearances, behaviour, etc. We have a lot of rookies on the team this year and it is important that they understand that when an excited 3rd grader runs up with wide eyes that that they leave us even more excited and in awe.

This is a form of training that is constantly being exerted. During the finals matches at the Peachtree we had girl scout troop in our pits and it was cool and jazzed up.

[T3_1565]

the way I see it, if it is a robot vs robot match, expect robot vs robot interactions.

You golf analogy is a bad one to use, as each golfer plays one at a time, and do not interact with one another during game play, whereas a three vs three robot match will always have elements of offense and defence.

Whenever there is something VS. something one side will always be dissapointed with the outcome. It's part of every sport. It's not being ungracious, its just how to play the game.

PS. I'm sure if the team that rammed you damaged you in any way, and they found out about it, they would be the first people there to try and fix it for you! Most teams are like that here in FIRST.

[The Lucas]

Competition and GP aren't the most natural fit, but they aren't mutually exclusive either. In order to compete effectively, it is necessary to do and say things that are, let's say GP-neutral. As long as your strategy is not to intentionally (or probably) break the rules I wouldn't say it is against GP.

In previous years, being a defense-only bot was a viable and necessary part of general "every match" strategy. This year I do not think that "all-defense, all-match, every-match" is a good strategy for a team to have and I would go so far as to say it is a bad strategy considering the lap points that are easily available for any robot with a working drive train. Sure there are occasions where you are against an elite hurdler (4-5 potential) when spending all match on them is the optimal strategy. IMHO a "lap and tap" approach is better for general matches. Focus on points from laps and play opportunistic defense. The faster you move, the more opportunities for quick defensive maneuvers while racking up the lap points.

Originally Posted by martin417

I may have overstated my position on defense. The strategies mentioned above are all legal, and I don't have a problem with them as far as they go. However, I saw much more aggressive defensive strategies, one particular incident stands out (because it happened to us). A team rammed our bot while it was attempting to knock a ball from the overpass, causing the bot to tilt and lift it's wheels from the ground, they then backed up a few feet and waited. Every time the bot was able to disengage from the overpass, they ran forward again, ramming the bot and entangling it in the overpass. This was repeated no less than 3 times. The other bot never attempted to score during the match, it merely sat and waited for our bot to free itself from the overpass. To me, this is a blatant violation of <G37>

In regards to damaging robots, it is an unfortunate reality in any game and is usually unintentional. Many teams/drivers will even apologize for major damage in the heat of competition or offer to help you fix your robot. That is GP off the field that you don't see on the field. Please consider these actions before letting your initial impressions harden.

The infractions you are describing are among the worst I have seen/heard this year (and I watch many competitions) although they are not uncommon in previous more defensive games. I would encourage you to visit the Championships in Atlanta for at least Saturday in order to see a different perspective on how teams play this game.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Cappeh

As much as FIRST pushes gracious professionalism, there are always teams that play just to win. Most people won't admit it, but I've seen teams that are rude and unpolite;

I saw a case of this in FTC one time. My son, a 4th-year veteran, was nearly apoplectic. When the team in question figured out their error (it was during a match) and did the GP thing, the audience cheered. I think the lesson was learned, for at least one team.

There's a thread going on now about "would you give your time out to the other alliance if they needed it." I'm frankly stunned that any FIRST team would answer "no" to this question. I haven't been to or watched nearly as many FRC tournaments as some old-timers, but I think it happened in about half the finals I've seen.

[feliks_rosenber]

First of all , the defense is the best offense.

GP does not necessarily mean not using defense as a means of improving the alliance score.
This has always been part of the game, part of the world of sports.

GP can be practiced in so many other ways.
Helping other teams, even your opponent alliance is just one to mention.

Many FIRST teams do know the meaning of GP.

However, every team can take action and become a role model by conveying this important FIRST value.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by feliks_rosenber

First of all , the defense is the best offense.

GP does not necessarily mean not using defense as a means of improving the alliance score.
This has always been part of the game, part of the world of sports.

I do not agree that defense is the best offense. I believe that one can (and should try to) score more points than can prevent points from being scored.

Also, as I said earlier, I didn't mean to imply that ALL defense is bad, but that the MAIN goal of the game is offense, and that I observed several instances of "excessive", non GP defensive tactics.

[kborer22]

GP is an ideal that everyone should try and follow as best as possible, but being sort of an abstract thing, with an evolving meaning, it's hard to starndardize it. Most teams are not out to intentionally damage other robots but it is something that happens. Unless there is a plan on cloning Woody and Dean and giving a set of them all teams, opinions on GP are going to differ. I was on (MORT 11 in HS and now 125) and in both cases have experienced non-GP. We have been picked for alliances where we have been told this is what your doing and thats that, by an adult on the team, and we knew our strategy was better but there was nothign we could do about it.

I am on a college team in the Boston Area and can see how things could get out of hand quickly at an event. If a new team is completely inexperienced and has no idea how the are supposed to interact with the other teams, then things are going to happen. We mentor about 6 teams directly and another 9-10 indriectly, and one of the things we give them advice about is what its like on the field. Hopefully through our mentoring they will see how teams should be run and help others (we have our problems like everyone else) and how to carry themselves. But if a mentor wants a team behave in a certain way/let the kids do whatever they want then we may make a suggestions as to what they need to change, but in the end it's how they want to run it.