As I indicated in my previous posting, I'm extremely sorry for the situation and I know there are a lot of strong emotions around the situation. In the interest of full transparency (and to prevent the spread of non-factual information which has already started in this thread), and as the person most directly involved and aware of all aspects of what occurred, I intend to provide whatever information I can to everyone. However, please note I am NOT going to get into a debate over the merits of the decisions we made, as that involves a lot of after-the fact analysis that would incorporate additional inappropriate information (such as the fact that Centerville is going to Nationals).
First off here is an excerpt from an email I sent late last night to the National Office, State Director, Mentor and Centerville coaches documenting the situation:
The genesis of the situation is that there was an allegation of misconduct by the Centerville team involving testing their Electric Vehicle in the hallway outside the competition room the day before the tournament. It just so happens that the Electric Vehicle Event Supervisor is from Mentor. There were extensive conversations throughout the day between all parties involved in this particular incident. Initially, the Event Supervisor assessed a 1000 point penalty to Centerville ‘s raw score, per the EV rules. Centerville appealed this penalty, and after lengthy conversations amongst the event supervisor, the state director, and the 2 arbitrators (I’m one of them), it was mutually agreed that we would instead issue an overall Team penalty (per the General Rules), which wouldn’t impact their EV score, but rather their team score.
The four of us decided this penalty should be 5 points (effectively equal to a 5 point change in rank in the event). Note that at the time we decided this, none of us had any indication what the overall scores / ranks looked like for the tournament, and only the event supervisor knew what the event specific ranks looked like. The error, which I take full personal responsibility for, occurred when I went to implement the 5 point team penalty. I forgot to remove the 1000 point raw score penalty that had already been assessed in the event itself. As a result of this, when we announced the results, Centerville was listed in 35th place in EV, and 4th place overall.
Mentor was as the same time announced as being in 2nd place overall in the tournament (and hence going to Nationals representing Ohio). Immediately after the awards ceremony, the event supervisor had the great integrity to bring to my attention that I had forgotten to remove the initial 1000 point penalty. I was able to quickly determine that this would result in Centerville placing 2nd in Electric Vehicle, and 2nd as a team overall. After consulting with the state director, and per our published Ohio scoring policy that results announced in the ceremony are tentative until at least 1 hour after the ceremony, we decided correct the error and award the 2nd place spot to Centerville (resulting in them being the 2nd team to go to Nationals).
What I didn't detail (as it wasn't really important in the context of that email), is more information regarding the allegation and deliberations regarding a penalty. But since I think people here are interested in it, here are some key details:
-There is indeed photographic evidence of Centerville practicing in the hallway near the competition room (which I have seen). Centerville confirms that they did that.
-The competition track had not been setup yet at this point, only the room it was going to be in had been announced (a picture of the room can be seen by anyone here:
http://streaming.osu.edu/classroom/jr/2 ... index.html).
-The location the incident took place in was NOT within the competition room itself, but rather in the hallway outside the room. Note also it wasn't in the immediate hallway adjacent to the room, but rather ~20 feet down the hallway (adjacent to another room).
-Centerville states that they asked and received permission to do this byo a person who has an office right there (a person not affiliated with SO, but an OSU employee).
-The flooring in the hallway appears to be the exact same material as the flooring int he competition room.
-There was a message sent to all coaches earlier prohibiting practicing on Friday in the event venues for several events. Notably, Electric Vehicle was NOT called out as one of those events.
-On Friday afternoon, shortly after the State Director was made aware of this situation by the Electric Vehicle supervisor (who did not himself witness it), she sent out a message to coaches added Electric Vehicle to the prohibited practice venues.
-At approximately the same time, Centerville was made aware of this concern and immediate vacated the building.
-I personally discussed the situation with the Event Supervisor, Centerville Coach, State Director, and other Arbitrator as soon as events started Saturday morning. It was agreed that the Event Supervisor would question the students about the situation when they competed mid-day and then decide whether to issue a penalty.
-After they competed, the Event Supervisor did decide to issue a penalty. The only penalty he could point to in the rules is 5.d., which issues a 1000 point penalty for competition violations. The relevant competition violation is 4.f that states "...They may not roll the vehicle on or adjacent to the track surface between the Starting and Target lines at any time prior to or during the competition."
-Centerville formally appealed, at which point the decision was placed in the hands of the arbitration committee and State Director.
-We had EXTENSIVE conversations with all parties involved over the next few hours. Topics discussed included:
-What the definition of 'adjacent' is (i.e. if they had done this on another floor of the building would it be ok?)
-What constitutes "between the Starting and Target lines", particularly when the track hasn't event be setup yet
-How far back in time "prior to the competition" should apply (e.g. what it they did it a week ago?)
-Whether the penalty should apply to both scores runs or only the first scored run (note that both of Centerville's runs resulted in very similar scores, but the second run was slightly better)
-Whether Centerville significantly and unfairly benefited from this action
-Whether other teams had the opportunity to do this or similar actions (e.g. there were allegations of other teams putting vehicles on the floor during checkin and moving them around a little bit)
-What the intent of rule 4.f. is.
-There was a general consensus amongst the Event Supervisor and Arbitrators that the 1000 point penalty was not appropriate in this situation. We all felt to varying degrees that they did something that fell into a grey area of the rules (e.g. might not be against the letter of the rules, but perhaps against the spirit of the rules) and should probably be discouraged.
-The SO General Rules (
https://www.soinc.org/ethics_rules) provide some good guidance, specifically:
-Failure by a participant, coach, or guest to abide by these codes, accepted safety procedures, or rules below, may result in an assessment of penalty points or, in rare cases, disqualification by the tournament director from the event, the tournament, or future tournaments.
-Actions and items (e.g., tools, notes, resources, supplies, electronics, etc.) are permitted, unless they are explicitly excluded in the rules, are unsafe, or violate the spirit of the problem.
-Officials are encouraged to apply the least restrictive penalty for rules infractions (see examples in the Scoring Guidelines). Event supervisors must provide prompt notification of any penalty, disqualification or tier ranking.
-Using those as a guide, it's clear they should NOT be DQ'd, nor significantly penalized. There is a precedence in Ohio in applying a general penalty of points against an entire team, so we all agreed that was appropriate in this situation.
-It then came time to decide the magnitude of the penalty. The Event Supervisor and both arbitrators independently and simultaneously came up with the number #5 for that (e.g. effectively equal to 5 ranks in the event itself).
One final comment: I'm slightly disturbed by the statements I'm seeing saying we are 'rewarding cheaters'. While everyone's entitled to their own opinion of course, my viewpoint was that Centerville pushed the boundaries of the rules and made a general good faith effort to abide by the letter of the rules. They were indeed penalized for perhaps pushing a bit too far. That penalty was somewhat arbitrarily set, but it would be inappropriate to have tried to take overall team standings into the calculations (which is essentially what many people are now suggesting).
