What are the grounds for a replay?

[jblay]

I was going through the rules trying to find what constitutes a replay and I found this rule

[T25]
If, in the judgment of the Head Referee, an “Arena fault” occurs that affects either the play or the outcome of the Match, the Match will be replayed. Example Arena faults include broken Arena elements, power failure to a portion of the Arena, improper activation of the Arena control system, errors by Arena personnel, etc.

This seems vague to me as it does not address what happened many times this year with people not being sure if it was the field's fault and making the decision based on the significance of the match and or if the problems occur in other matches. I think that for the future this rule should be more black and white with less arguing needed to make replay happen. If there is any doubt, the match should be replayed in my opinion but regardless the rule must be clearer and not just up to the referees discretion.

[DevenStonow]

I agree that this rule needs to be more black and white. The problem is in what is determined as a "field fault". IMO, it seems like it's not so much something to be determined by the Head Ref, but moreso something that is strongly influenced by the FTAs, who (rightfully so) usually look into the problem as a robot problem before looking into it as a field problem...It seems to me like this diagnosis just takes long, which is why at regionals we have not seen many replays related to connection.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by stevend1994

IMO, it seems like it's not so much something to be determined by the Head Ref, but moreso something that is strongly influenced by the FTAs, who (rightfully so) usually look into the problem as a robot problem before looking into it as a field problem...

I agree with this, and with making the grounds for a rematch much more black and white. However, I also believe that one should be able to challenge the validity of a robot vs. field fault, and if one has outstanding evidence that their robot was not the end that failed, be granted a rematch. Though, I do understand that this does invite controversy over some teams ungraciously trying to get a rematch for a flat loss.

[EricH]

There is one other ground for a replay: Full and complete tie after all tiebreakers are considered, in the eliminations only.

That's never happened.

Field faults include a Roomba under the bridge and pokey-pokey stick wielders failing to clear jams fast enough to prevent bounceouts, this year at any rate. (Not limited to those...)

[dag0620]

Originally Posted by EricH

There is one other ground for a replay: Full and complete tie after all tiebreakers are considered, in the eliminations only.

That's never happened.

Field faults include a Roomba under the bridge and pokey-pokey stick wielders failing to clear jams fast enough to prevent bounceouts, this year at any rate. (Not limited to those...)

Roomba under the bridge?

[jblay]

Originally Posted by dag0620

Roomba under the bridge?

QF 1-1 on Curie. It was quite funny.

[jmiller48167]

see Curie QF1-1 the is a video of this already search cd for it.

[Peter Matteson]

We got a replay at WPI when in 2 consecutive matches the same player station wouldn't link up to the robots. At first they bypassed 190, blaming them for it, but then it happened in the next match to the same station annd a replay was granted at the end of the day. Some wires were swapped around between player stations in the field controls and the problem went away for a while.

[jblay]

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

We got a replay at WPI when in 2 consecutive matches the same player station wouldn't link up to the robots. At first they bypassed 190, blaming them for it, but then it happened in the next match to the same station annd a replay was granted at the end of the day. Some wires were swapped around between player stations in the field controls and the problem went away for a while.

But why didn't they do the same thing for the #1 and #2 alliances in the semis at CT? It just seems fairly random when they decide to replay, that is why we have a game manual.

[animenerdjohn]

I believe you can only replay if it is a proven fault with the field, and in no way associated with the robot. And only if you can prove it was the field (i.e. communication failures do not warrant a replay because you cannot prove it was the field).

[BigJ]

If they formalize the procedure for replays more I'd like to see an option for the offended team (if problems affect only one alliance or robot) to decline the replay (Much like coaches can decline a penalty call in American football if the non-penalized field position / down is more advantageous).

I can remember at least one match in 1675's history where we won and had to replay because of a field fault involving the communications of one of our alliance members. We won the replay if I remember correctly, but I don't think a replay is necessary there.

[jblay]

Originally Posted by BigJ

If they formalize the procedure for replays more I'd like to see an option for the offended team (if problems affect only one alliance or robot) to decline the replay (Much like coaches can decline a penalty call in American football if the non-penalized field position / down is more advantageous).

I can remember at least one match in 1675's history where we won and had to replay because of a field fault involving the communications of one of our alliance members. We won the replay if I remember correctly, but I don't think a replay is necessary there.

I disagree. If this is the case then having your robot go down is an advantage and you essentially get a free match. In football you can decline a penalty because the other team is giving you the advantage. The replay isn't being caused by the other alliance so why should they be punished for it?

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by jblay

I disagree. If this is the case then having your robot go down is an advantage and you essentially get a free match. In football you can decline a penalty because the other team is giving you the advantage. The replay isn't being caused by the other alliance so why should they be punished for it?

It was unclear in my orginal post. The entire match was played, we won, and then a replay was called because one of our robots hadn't moved. (No foghorn.) I don't see it as a free win because we were at a disadvantage the first time in my mind.

I guess you could construe field position as an advantage. (Although this was Lunacy, where not moving means the opposing HP gets to score all day )

My main point was that playing 2 vs 3 was a disadvantage, and you won anyway, but I can see how this is not always true.

Edit: After some more thought I think I see what you are getting at. Maybe the 3rd bot gets in the way if it can drive, etc. I see where the analogy to football breaks down though -- declining the penalty (replay) isn't punishing the other team (alliance) because that's what it would have been without the call. The version using the robot terms in parentheses isn't necessarily true.