In a recent competition we were partnered up with a team. They told us to touch every ball and back off even when the hadnt even scored the fiest ball in yet. Our coach told them thats not how we play and he helped us change our strategy. Was this justified?
1 Like
I would say that this is a G2 violation, as coaches are not allowed to make decisions on a teamâs gameplay (full quote: âAdults should not make decisions about the Robotâs build, design, or gameplay, and should not provide an unfair advantage by providing âhelpâ that is beyond the Studentsâ independent abilities. Students must be prepared to demonstrate an active understanding of their Robotâs design, construction, and programming to judges or event staffâ). If you had been the one to say that you had a different idea for the strategy, and that you worked out a strategy, I would think that it is justified to discuss strategy with an alliance before a match.
2 Likes
You should be advising on strategy. Your coach should not be strategising with your alliance, you should be.
While I cant speak for every situation, the unwillingness to change strategy because you have predetermined âhow you playâ is often very frustrating if that predetermined strategy is incompatible or inneficient in scoring. A good alliance partner should be open to dynamic strategy to optimize for success, rather than limiting yourself to a strategy that works worse but you are unwilling to change.
7 Likes
That strategy âtouch-and-goâ does work well paired up with some teams. This allowes the faster robot grab the balls once they have been touched, increasing the score. Iâm not sure your coach should have done that.
2 Likes
Typically teams are supposed to be able to develop a strategy for both teams can play how they would like to.
Hi 520D, you may need to add more detail since I am interpreting what you said much differently then the other responses.
It sounds to me like your alliance team considered your team to be a lesser quality or lower performing team by asking your team to do the bare minimum to count for a pass but otherwise essential sit in the corner and do nothing. In other words your alliance was intentionally asking your team to play below their ability, I would consider this to be unjustified of the alliance team and quite frankly unsportsmanlike conduct. I came to this conclusion based on the statement âThey told us.â
Your coach then found out, either your team told him or he overheard the other team tell your team that or whatever. He then stepped in and said no that is not how we play. I take the âWeâ to be your team 520D and the Vex community as a whole. By saying âthat is not how we playâ Iâm taking it as we do not tell our alliance to sit back and play below your ability nor do we (520D) ourselves sit back and play below our ability. Your coach then helped (coached?) both teams to change strategy. Here is where I have to assume, your coach, coached or helped the two teams develop a game strategy where both teams worked equally to the best of there abilities to score as many points as possible during the 60 second Teamwork Challenge. Your coach saw unsportsmanlike conduct which is a G1 violation and intervened. I believe he was justified and hopefully both team learned from it.
Ultimately you were the one who was there, do you and your team think what happened was justified?
Something for all teams to ponder. Have you told your alliance to touch the ball then back off? What if there was no pass point multiplier and passes were only worth 1 point or maybe no points, would you tell your alliance to lay off or stay in the corner? If so do you think that is the spirit of teamwork?
10 Likes
Cooled Sun,
You interpreted this how it felt un the competition. It felt like we were playing under our abilitirs a violation of the rules.
I disagree.
Playing a role that is less fun doesnât mean you were playing under your ability. The alliance partner wanted to maximize on points, and gave you a task to help achieve this.
Is it less fun than shooting balls? Yes. But working with other teams is a strength that VEXIQ helps you develop.
As a V5RC competitor, sometimes I choose to keep our robot in the corner to protect a goal. Thatâs not as fun as filling wall stakes. But it is the best way we can contribute to a win.
10 Likes
As a mentor of a team that was subjected to another team relatively early in the season that told our team to go sit in the corner and just tap the balls so the other team could do the scoring themselves, I have opinions on this situation.
-
If a team chooses to go along with that strategy willingly, recognizing that it maximizes their score, I have no problem with it, as the alliance is agreed on a strategy.
-
If a team in the alliance does not want to participate that way, but is still pressured to go along with it, then that is a clear
G1violation. This is the situation my kids faced at the competition, and they wanted to feel like they were doing their part, even if they did have a technically less-capable robot. (And before anyone starts dragging this thread away from OPâs topic, this situation was addressed, and no, I will not be divulging the other teamâs identity).
To 520D, if your team was willing to go along with the original plan, fully understanding what was being expected, then I would not say you were playing under your ability, you were playing to the strength of the allianceâs total capability. Your coach should have checked in with you first to see whether that was the clear choice from your team. If not, they could certainly have facilitated, in concert with the other teamâs coach, a discussion on how best to arrive at a strategy that everyone was happy with.
9 Likes
So, there are several things to consider here. You and some others that have replied to this post are trying to make the other team out to be bad sports for attempting a strategy to maximize the score for both of you. Part of being a good teammate and therefore a good teamwork partner is knowing your strengths and weaknesses, and adapting to what works best for you and your partner. The goal of this game is to score as many points as possible. In looking at the skills rankings, it appears that your team has a high driving skills score of 58 which puts you at 145th place in your state, and that the top teams in your state all have driving skills scores of at least 3 to 4 times that amount. It also appears that your average teamwork score is below 50. I am assuming that the team you were partnered with was capable of scoring much higher than that and wanted to make sure that the strategy they ran with you was one that would maximize your shared score. I would say that choosing to run a strategy that forces your teammates to take a lower score than what you would otherwise be capable of scoring is what constitutes bad sportsmanship. Compare this situation to other sports. If the kicker on the football team decides they want to do more than just kick the ball, even though that is what is best for the team, but instead they want to go out and call plays and try to throw the ball then that is being selfish and putting themselves above the good of the team. If the center on the basketball team decides that they want to bring the ball up and try to dribble around defenders and shoot 3s, instead of playing their position, then that is being selfish and putting themselves above the good of the team. You have to understand that sometimes you will run with teams that are below your level, and sometimes you will run with teams that are above your level. You should know your strengths and weaknesses, and know when you should be leading the strategy and when you should be following the strategy. It is not good sportsmanship to intentionally drag down another team and force them to take a lower score simply because you donât like to play the part of teammate. If this were to happen this late in the season at a State Championship then consider the fact that if you choose to not do the strategy that gets both teams the most points possible, then your run could very well cause your teammate to not make the finals simply because you didnât want to do what was best for you and your teamwork partner. Teamwork works both directions.
8 Likes
Blockquote gave you a task to help achieve this.
BOLD added by me for emphasis. This is the problem. The 2 teams are equals. They collaborate to come up with a strategy.
The teams are supposed to strategize with one another, not the coaches. If you felt you were able to do more, then you should have been the ones to offer a better strategy, not to make your team have more fun, but to maximize the score of both teams. And ultimately, you should have chosen the option that capitalized on the highest score possible for both teams.
Itâs a teamwork challenge for the alliance, not just your team. That is a legitimate strategy for capitalizing on the strengths of the teams. If their robot was faster and able to score more points more efficiently by utilizing a touch and go system, then that is probably what should have been done even if it was less fun for your team.
If the team bullied you into doing it then sure, a G1 violation, but also, if you bullied them into doing something else by your coach stepping in and demanding the strategy be changed, also a G1 violation as well as a G2 violation of your coach strategizing for you in a student centered program.
3 Likes
In order for a team to strategize anything, tasks have to be GIVEN in some form otherwise nothing would ever be done. The other team GAVE a strategy to their team in order to accomplish the the main goal. Collaboration requires that something be input, given. If the team did not like the task, then they, as students and alliance members, should have GIVEN input on a higher scoring strategy to help the other team achieve their maximum score, not expecting a team to feel like they are participating below their skill level or holding back so that their alliance can feel like they are doing more or having more fun. Coming to a conclusion that benefits both teams by creating a higher score is what makes good teammates.
They are equal partners in that match, the coach is not. This is why VEX has removed the ability for teams to take their own practice boards to worlds now and are forcing all alliances to practice on the shared fields, to remove the coach input.
2 Likes
I completely disagree with your âteamâsâ and coachâs decision and reaction to this suggestion. All the team was suggesting a strategy that they believed would work. It is one thing if they were to tell you this is the strategy, it is another to offer a strategy they believe will work. By your logic, you would be saying that someone offering a strategy which a good team scores, which is much easier and less fun, while a better team picks up balls from the loading station, which is generally more fun and a bit harder, while both robots are able to do either or, is a violation. Our team has faced two violations this year based off complete assumptions. It is important to talk to the other team before assuming a violation.
2 Likes
I donât know if this strategy is a violation of the rules or not. My team was asked to use this strategy a few times at states. It was upsetting, because our robot could shoot and pass into our partnerâs catapults, but it made sense because our robot was a heavily modified herobot (our previous robot died of fall damage 
).
I find this ok. If you guys arenât able to do much, then this is the best strategy to score points and you guys are still contributing, driving around and such.
3 Likes