Elimination Match Tie-Breaker

[huberje]

Originally Posted by lemiant

This is not a valid argument. We knew from the very beginning that this was how it would be judges so when you built your robot, you should have put a tiny bit of extra weight towards the tie-breaker categories. It's no different than someone's judgement about how many points to award for a balance.

That's not the point I'm referring to.

I'm aware of what the rules say and I'm just speaking my opinion on the spirit of competition in general. I'm not a part of a team and the team I have previously been affiliated with has not been negatively affected by this system. I'm speaking from a spectator's standpoint. If the scores are the same the two alliances have demonstrated in some way that they are equal in skill for that round.

I'm not sure if it's the point of this thread or not, but in a lot of sports there is overtime, while in robotics there is not. The system adding a single point to the scores of an apparently random alliance (to a spectator) isn't spectator-friendly.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

Say all you want about "knowing the rules", but no one at the scoring table knew for sure why the score changed from 25 to 26, and it took several minutes for it to be determined and explained.

The "boo's" weren't because of who won, it was because everyone thought there was an error.

The reason i made the original post was to make sure more teams knew.

No one booed at FLR or Montreal when it happened (no one booed anything at Montreal they were just running in high gear all weekend just excited to see FIRST for the first time). Some people came up curious about what happened but that was about it.

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

No one booed at FLR or Montreal when it happened (no one booed anything at Montreal they were just running in high gear all weekend just excited to see FIRST for the first time). Some people came up curious about what happened but that was about it.

I didn't hear booing myself, but i suppose it's harder to hear the crowd with all the noise down on the field. I do not condone the booing in any way.

-Duke

[GaryVoshol]

The only criticism I have of the tiebreaker is that there is no indication on the "Big Screen" why one team's score apparently doesn't add up correctly.

We had one in QF 3-2 at Gull Lake Week 1. It was immediately apparent that it was going to be a tie. Basket points were 10-20, then balance points were 20-10. 20+10=30, but 10+20=31?

I knew there was a tiebreaker; I believe I had mentioned it to the alliance captains. But I hadn't memorized the formula. The announcer noted there was a tiebreaker, and then as soon as we looked it up he announced the criteria.

You can argue that there should or shouldn't be a tiebreaker, or that the criteria used are wrong. Make those points in your post-season analysis to FIRST. But don't argue that a tiebreaker is unfair because not enough people knew about it. Section 5 of the manual is there for a reason. Hmm, maybe if teams read the that, we'd stop having red cards all around when a team that has not passed inspection has their Inbounder participate anyway.

[DonRotolo]

This rule was used once at Rutgers during eliminations in week 2. It was clearly explained as the score was posted.

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

Say all you want about "knowing the rules", but no one at the scoring table knew for sure why the score changed from 25 to 26, and it took several minutes for it to be determined and explained.

The "boo's" weren't because of who won, it was because everyone thought there was an error.

The reason i made the original post was to make sure more teams knew.

I second that. I was working field reset (Red DS Kinect side gate) and it took me a sec to remember the rule... As for the red alliance, I was literally right there. All I could see on thier faces was disbelief... IIRC duke461 actually asked me about the rule since he (like everybody) was unsure (and the refs were busy at the scoring table).

In general, the semis at BMR were very close... the other semi (3rd vs 8th) went down to a piece of paper (to see if a fallen bot was touching a bridge). I agree that it would have made more sense to replay the match rather then tiebreak it, but the rules are the rules (until IRI, that is).