FRC Blog - My Bad Call

[Citrus Dad]

An excellent response and outcome. I'm glad that FIRST put the right priority on fairness. I completely understand the problem of communicating in this situation, and I'm glad that they came to this resolution.

[brennonbrimhall]

+1 Frank. Thanks for making it right -- as well as for your example of Gracious Professionalism. You put the attributes that FIRST emphasizes into practice.

There's not really many people I look up to in this world, but you've become one of them. Thanks for taking the blame, and showing this generation of FIRSTers (including me) how a real leader should act.

[Niezrecki]

I absolutely adore Frank! What an excellent man admitting mistake/ misinterpretation and trying to appease everyone. He is quite an inspiration to all of us FIRST Students and an excellent example of the great dedication to fairness that FIRST tries to embody. Gracious Professionalism all around. Makes me happy.

[Chris is me]

I'd like to join the chorus of posters in commending Frank for an excellent decision and a gracious admission of mistake. It takes quite the person to own up to something like this, publicly. What a guy.

Originally Posted by S.P.A.M.er 17

I tried to post this in a comment on the blog, but it set of the SPAM filter for some reason. I was planning on posting it here anyway.

"This mistake was caught, and handled in an efficient amount of time. It is a good when people catch their mistakes, and explain their reasoning. Just an explanation would have been a great start to helping the teams involved, but extending the wildcard was a full remedy, and a great decision. The question I now have is; why hasn't something similar happened for the Orlando events? A controversial call was made in Orlando, and it could have affected one team their spot to championship. Why are you picking and choosing certain controversial calls to not only address, but also remedy and not others? Those teams deserve an explanation for what transpired, especially since they have given theirs."

I am happy that 1323 now has a bid for championship, and FIRST definitely went down the right road to fix the situation. But as I said in my comment, why are they picking and choosing what to address? This is HQ's second questionable call of the season, and since they decided to address this one, why shouldn't they have to address the first one?

A difference in these scenarios is that while 1323 was a match or two away from qualifying via wild card, the Orlando alliance had to win the semis and the finals to qualify. There were 4-6 matches in the way of the 233 alliance qualifying, but just two in the way of 1323 qualifying. In the past FRC HQ has been more willing to do this when the mistake alone could have cost them a trip to the Championship, while we have no way of knowing if the 233 alliance would have won in the end.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

A difference in these scenarios is that while 1323 was a match or two away from qualifying via wild card, the Orlando alliance had to win the semis and the finals to qualify. There were 4-6 matches in the way of the 233 alliance qualifying, but just two in the way of 1323 qualifying. In the past FRC HQ has been more willing to do this when the mistake alone could have cost them a trip to the Championship, while we have no way of knowing if the 233 alliance would have won in the end.

HQ adjudicating which transgressions get freebies and which don't is a slippery slope - one which invites public discussions about which teams have been *more wronged* by game and/or administrative blar beyond their control.

I'd prefer HQ focus their efforts on minimizing the controllable root causes that lead to such transgressions occurring. That is the kind of "freebie" I think all teams would genuinely appreciate!

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

HQ adjudicating which transgressions get freebies and which don't is a slippery slope - one which invites public discussions about which teams have been *more wronged* by game and/or administrative blar beyond their control.

I'd prefer HQ focus their efforts on minimizing the controllable root causes that lead to such transgressions occurring. That is the kind of "freebie" I think all teams would genuinely appreciate!

While I agree with the latter paragraph, I have to take some exception to the former; policies that remove adjudication (that is, judgment) lead to ridiculous things like second graders getting suspended for chewing their Pop Tarts to look like pistols.

"Zero-tolerance" polices are zero-thought policies specifically because they strip the adjudicating body of the ability to apply judgment and reason to the situation, and that makes them bad policy.

So yes, HQ should do everything they can to minimize all situations wherein such calls have to be made in the first place, but when those transgressions occur, the use of judgment to arrive at the most desirable (or least undesirable) outcome is not a slippery slope, it's necessary for sane and reasonable policy.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Thanks to Frank and FRC HQ for doing what they could to "try and make it right" for 1323. I'm not going to lie, I was more upset than I have ever been at an FRC event leaving SVR Saturday afternoon (including after Einstein 2012). While this update doesn't completely wash out the bad taste in my mouth, it was definitely the right thing to do for 1323.

I'm really excited for 1323 to be coming to champs. Their robot and team is just plain awesome and they will make some noise in whatever division they end up in. Go Madtown!

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

Thanks to Frank and FRC HQ for doing what they could to "try and make it right" for 1323. I'm not going to lie, I was more upset than I have ever been at an FRC event leaving SVR Saturday afternoon (including after Einstein 2012). While this update doesn't completely wash out the bad taste in my mouth, it was definitely the right thing to do for 1323.

I'm really excited for 1323 to be coming to champs. Their robot and team is just plain awesome and they will make some noise in whatever division they end up in. Go Madtown!

Ditto to everything here. Can't wait to see 1323 tear it up at champs!

FIRST may want to reconsider the way they handle tricky situations that come up at competition. Currently, it seems like a very disconnected way to manage situations that often have many sides to them. I'd love to see Frank or whoever else at HQ talk to not only FTA's, Head Refs, LRI's, etc, but maybe a student or two on a team being affected by the ruling?

Not sure if this is feasible, but worth thinking about. Regardless, thank you Frank for connecting with Madtown and coming to the right conclusion. Glad we made it to the finals with 368 to open up that extra spot

-Mike

[D.Allred]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

A difference in these scenarios is that while 1323 was a match or two away from qualifying via wild card, the Orlando alliance had to win the semis and the finals to qualify. There were 4-6 matches in the way of the 233 alliance qualifying, but just two in the way of 1323 qualifying. In the past FRC HQ has been more willing to do this when the mistake alone could have cost them a trip to the Championship, while we have no way of knowing if the 233 alliance would have won in the end.

For Orlando, I feel that acknowledgement of the situation and improving the inspection process to address future misunderstandings are more important than a remedy for the affected teams.

(I see Travis already handled it...)