[Nicolas]

This is what happened:

Seed #2 (835 - 378 - 85) had won the first elimination match by a fairly large margin (~60 EP pts). In the second elimination round it was up to seed #6 (902 - 494 - 226) to make up the margin which is very hard to do this year because as stated elsewhere, if you are losing in the second round but won the first it should be your goal to stay off the ramp and eliminate any stacks that could be doubled for your opponents score.

What appears to have happened is that #85 didn't want to have autonomous code run (most likely in an effort to stay on the opponents side of the field and take out any stacks), but one of the FIRST event staff either accidentally or purposely stepped on the pressure mat for that team and activated the #85 robot. The match continued the martians defended a stack and made it to the top of the ramp and seed 6 had won by enough of a margin to advance. At this point seed #2 went to the judges to inform them what had happened, as they should have. The score was posted showing seed #6 as the winner but then it was announced of a replay of just match #2. It was VERY clear that the staff was unsure of how to handle this and be fair to both alliances involved. Match 2 was replayed and this time seed #6 won but not by enough margin to advance due to some quick thinking by seed 2 to stay off the ramp at the last second.

My question is this, if something like this comes up again on the second of 2 matches, would it be better to play both matches again or similar to what FIRST did and play only the second. I would argue that both matches should have been replayed to be fair to all involved. It is over now, while I was somewhat upset when we left, I do understand that it wasn't seed #2's fault either. After seeing the state of confusion that the event staff was in I would like to see at least something on an update if it happens again.

(from Matt Reiland's Post)

Was this the right call??? I think seed #2 should have got the refs attention right away (via the human player) by the ref doing this, it gave an unfair advantage to seed #2 because seed #2 would not have said anything if they advanced anyway.