**Gracious Professionalism and Coopertition
**
**Blog Date: **Thursday, March 6, 2014 - 16:43
I read a great story on Chief Delphi a few days ago.
At the Auburn Mountainview District event last weekend, Teams 2557, SOTABots, 3393, Horns of Havoc, and 4772, Optimistic Skyz were partnered on the red alliance in the final matches. The matches were tied, one win each for red and blue. With the final, deciding match coming up, these teams saw that the blue alliance needed more time to be prepared. At that point they did something remarkable – they called a time out. To be clear, they used their own time out to give their opponents the time they needed to be ready for the match. With the extra time, the blue alliance completed their preparations, and went on to win the event. While no one can say for certain what the outcome of that final match would have been without that time out, the red alliance’s selfless act likely contributed to their loss.
When I talk about FIRST values, I often say that every FRC Team wants to win, but they want to win by doing their best against other teams that are also doing their best. And for other teams to do their best, sometimes they need a little help.
Thanks, Team 2557, 3393, and 4772, for showing us the way. You’re setting the standard.
I love stories like this, and want to hear more. Got a great story that happened this season showcasing FIRST Values? Send the story to [email protected] with ‘GP Story’ somewhere in the subject line. They’ll send it to me, and we might blog about a few more over the season.
I remember a thread about this raising a small amount of stink that “the other alliance used the time-out” or that the time-out was traded. Well, they didn’t really, and since Frank likes it, it must be okay.
One of the first instances I can remember of this was Team 696 giving a time out to 330 at the 2004 Phoenix finals. 330s driver at the time came to me in tears asking if we could use our timeout for them. How could I say no? Of course we would.
I thought in recent years it has not been allowed because it slows the flow of events. Maybe that’s only for consecutive timeouts? I don’t remember.
While giving up your time out to the other alliance happins each year I remember at the Championship when in addition to giving up the time out an alliance gave the needed part that help the other alliance win. AT SVR one year 100 was in the finals and 4 of the other 5 robots had team 100 parts on them.
I too thought this was illegal, per the tournament rules. But luckily we’ve never been in the position of having to ask or having been asked for a timeout like this.
Great example of how every team should aspire to handle themselves at competition. There’s far more to be had from FIRST for everyone when everyone participates with this approach. I’ll be sure to share this with 4464 at our next meeting.
It is not illegal to use a timeout for another alliance. You cannot, however, have one alliance use a timeout, then have the other alliance use their timeout (i.e. cascading timeouts).
Not legal: Giving your timeout coupon to another alliance.
Not legal: Calling your timeout either right before or right after the other alliance calls theirs.
Legal: Calling your timeout just because your opponents look like they need more time, and haven’t called theirs for whatever reason, including having used it earlier. (You’re doing a robot repair: the batteries need more charge. :rolleyes: )
Provided that all rules are followed in the timing of when a timeout may be used, I think FIRST would be crazy to not allow for an alliance to take a timeout because it was to help the other alliance.
That being said, all of those teams should be proud of the gracious professionalism that they have showed.
I’m not saying any team involved did anything wrong or anything like that.
BUT… I’m not entirely sure if I like something like this being put in the FRC blog. Basically, it says that this is something you should do, without providing details as to exactly why. Now, if some robot on the other alliance suffers an unexpected calamity, or breaks because you hit them overly hard in the last match, then I would think that it would be graciously professional to use your timeout for them. But, if their robot just happened to break… well, isn’t building a robust and reliable robot part of the game? Should alliances really be expected to give up one of their most important resources to accommodate for their opponents’ failure? Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think so. We’re not expected to handicap ourselves on the field, why does it seem like most expect timeouts to work that way?
I apologize if this post comes off as mean or ungracious or anything like that, but I just think that this becoming essentially expected behavior in all cases is not a good thing.
In short: Yes; and if not “expected,” then at least “greatly encouraged.” FRC is not just a competition, and the members of the opposing alliance are not simply “opponents.” It is a communal engineering challenge, and everyone gets the most out of it when all participants are at their best. It is far more inspiring to see this approach to FIRST than to see an alliance lose their last match because they lacked the time or resources to correct a mechanical failure.
The game on the field is not the end-goal of FIRST; it is a tool for achieving that end-goal.
Another excellent example of this was the 2010 Philadelphia regional. The alliance of 341/365 called a timeout for us after one of our partner’s CRIO decided the second match of the semifinals was the best time to stop working. It allowed us to get them fixed up and we ended up with 7-8 loss due to a penalty. Still the most amazing match I have ever watched, and our team still tells stories about how awesome Miss Daisy and MOE are.
