I talked to a bunch of people at Detroit about this and got mixed answers. So this is the situation, in the finals, the other alliance has a problem with their robot, is trying to fix it, has already used their timeout, and your alliance still has their own timeout card. It is only the semi finals so there are still a few matches left if you don’t get eliminated.
Should you call a time out to give the other alliance a chance, or keep it for your alliance just in case?
I myself would give it away in a second because i would rather play a fair match than a 2 against 3 any day, and it just seems like a perfect example of gracious professionalism. Some people though, thought that it isn’t cruel to keep it for yourself, and you shouldn’t feel pressured to give it away.
Well don’t they usually have a time in between matches in the finals for fixing the robot. And I think that if you use a time out and you can’t get it fixed with the other time given to you that you might not be able to fix it even if the other alliance use their time out. If back to back timeouts were allowed.
I would totally agree with you. However… this year they made a rule saying that time-outs could not be called consecutively. So if the blue alliance called a time-out and needed more time they would either have to play a match 2vs 3 or call up a back-up team and the red alliance couldn’t do anything about it. kind of sucks but rules are rules…
I think it would be cool for the other alliance to call a time out after the opponents time out That is, if it looked like they need the additional time. They wouldn’t even have to know that you did for their sake. Now, that would be cool.
Let’s clarify the situation. The alliance in question had to use their time-out in the Quarter-finals. It’s now the 2nd SEMI-final match, your underdog alliance has already won Semi-final #1, and the robot in question is now broken again. While the other Semi-final match was played, they were working on the robot, but it’s still broken - fixable, but they need more time.
So, do you call your time-out now (not back-to-back) or save it in case your alliance needs it in the Finals?
I don’t see how any alliance captain can be faulted for either decision.
At SVR, the blue alliance in the finals used a timeout for the red alliance. The red alliance had used their timeout a few matches earlier, so it was not a back-to-back timeout situation.
I’ll start by saying nothing I say here is meant offensively or to intentionally put down anyone.
I was rather disappointed in the way things turned out in the semis. Winning by penalties in the 2 vs 3 was certainly not ideal.
I was on the pit crew that fixed the drive train, and I know we would have LOVED your timeout. However, I do not think any less of any members of your alliance because you did not give it to us.
I think giving the timeout is a great display of the morals and spirit of FIRST, but it is in a way suicide for your alliance and against the idea of competition. Of course you do not want to win because of our drive train failure, just as we didn’t want to win due to penalties, but rules are rules and failures are failures. If a team can not fix their robot in the time given by the timeout, then their design was not robust enough and they do not deserve the title.
In the end, we all knew 469, 217, and 440 were going to be brutal competition, so I see nothing wrong with you guys wanting to save your timeout, in case you needed it against them.
I remember talking with you about this, and <T19> aside (which didn’t apply in this situation anyways) I still feel the right decision would’ve been to use the time out. As soon as we heard about what was going on with 27’s bot, myself and our operator went over to see if there was anything we could do to help. They had a beautiful machine and really deserved to see it functioning properly; on the other side of the field, winning by 30 points (which they kind of did) due to a 2v3 situation really is not as… inspiring.
However, like Gary said, I don’t see a fault in making either decision (for the reasons given by CountTo19).
Yeah… I asked the head ref about it, just in a hypothetical sense and he led me to <T19>. Amazingly, I don’t believe any time-outs were called during eliminations at the CT Regional.
While it may be the courteous thing to do, offering your TIME-OUT to your opponent is against the rules. There is no need to anguish over a chioce that was not your’s to make.
Yes. but if I, instead of offering my timeout to my opponent, use my time out to ‘talk about strategy’ while they repair their robot, then all is according to the rules
The intent of T-19 was implied by their mention of an alliance completing their repairs. If that was indeed their intent, then perhaps they should have been more explicit, so that we would not even try to wiggle our way around it.
The GDC has a very tough job because there are a lot of very smart people out there looking at the rules.
I understand the intent of the rule, however, I Like many others want to beat our opponent when they are at their best. Winning because your opponent is broken (possibly through no fault of their own … or even possibly because of MY team) does not make for a good spectator sport, which is what FIRST needs in order to change the culture.
In fact, I would go so far as to say I’d rather lose in the finals, and have used my timeout for my opponent, than win with my opponent having a broken 'bot. The reason is because I believe we’ve already won by that point … and the competition is the celebration of our hard work and learning over the 6 weeks. to do otherwise, IMHO, lessens the gains we make and opens up the ‘win at any cost’ mentality.
If they had said straight out, “you can’t call a timeout so your opponent can repair their robots”, there would be a massive protest. They are trying to stay on schedule, hence the “no cascading timeouts.”
Also, if they really wanted to be explicit… I could, if I wanted to, hurt my opponent, even though they called the TO. (I don’t want to.) Legally. “Their repairs” only refers to “an alliance”, not “the calling alliance”. Again, I wouldn’t use this.
In my opinion, there is no however. In the interest of fair play, we must adhere to the obvious intent of the rule. It does not matter that the cause is noble, nor whether we agree with the rule, nor whether we’ll feel good about ourselves by going against it, nor whether we feel that little white lies are different from big dark ones.
It is a very slippery slope we’re on when we decide to violate the rule. A team could break down in the quarterfinals, take their time out, and then be awarded another one match later by the opposing alliance. They could enjoy the same gift in the semifinals and finals for a total of 24 minutes to repair their machine. Meanwhile, another team that was not as well known or well liked could break down and have just the six minutes allowed by the rules, maybe because their opponents had already given their time out away. The only way to insure that each and every team has the same opportunity is to obey the rule. If you want to be fair, then be fair to us all.
That is, if it looked like they need the additional time. They wouldn’t even have to know that you did for their sake. Now, that would be cool. 
