Quote:
Originally Posted by bduddy
I understand what you're saying, but I think SVR 2008 was different in one key respect: the originally-losing alliance was acting based on incorrect information based on earlier referee decisions. At that point, I think simply declaring them the losers based on the correct interpretation of the rules would be less than fair. Of course, declaring the replay was also less than fair. Obviously the fair solution would have been for none of the incorrect calls to have been made in the first place, but at that point that was not an option. I believe that telling the red alliance they lost, after they won by what the referees had previously told them the rules were, would not have been a better solution.
|
To bring things back onto the track I laid a few hours ago, the point of the SVR story was to demonstrate how incredibly bad a finals has to get before it makes some sense to give the (eventual) finalists a seat at Champs. Contrast that with what happened in Washington where there was a simple scoring error and it was rectified 15 minutes later in the least dramatic way possible, given the situation. Minimum of confusion, no weird replays, no bad calls by refs, just an unfortunate scoring error that would have been completely uncontroversial if it had occured in Finals 1 or 2 instead of Finals 3.
Yes even Finals 2, where the same mistake would have turned a Blue win into a tie, with the rubber match in Finals 3. Because Blue would've felt the went down playing instead of having the win snatched from them with no chance to play for the victory. I'm guessing if things went down in this order, people wouldn't be calling for qualifying Blue for Champs, because when you look at it in this order, it seems "fair". This is the best argument against qualifying the Finalists for Champs, because while it's nearly the exact same situation, it feels totally different.