[patar8746]

Originally Posted by alicen

side note to the line in the original post for the thread about ruining the chances of some very deserving students -- were the students on the opposing alliance not deserving? I think everyone is deserving, but please be GP!

I definitely agree that the other alliance was well-qualified, being the first seed, winning the third match without error, and bringing it to within single digits with the error accounted for. However, having lost in quarterfinals as a student plenty of times, it was easy to be GP and congratulate the winning alliance because we knew we had lost fair and square. I still believe the way that second match was judged was unfair, but ultimately as of that event the scoring dispute was handled exactly according to the rules: we sent student representatives to discuss the situation, Referees listened to all we had to say but couldn't overturn the call. The situation was played by the rules so I can't do anything to change what happened to my students.

What I can do is spread awareness of the problem and open up discussion about what the best way to solve it is. Specific implementation of a replay system will be tough to figure out, but as you said, every team is deserving. To me that means every team deserves as fair an evaluation as can be given to them, and an opportunity to advance based on those fair evaluations. A video system is one of the best ways I can see to ensure fair evaluation for this game.

Game design can make things easier, like how some years (ex: Ultimate Ascent, Recycle Rush, Logomotion) almost all scoring could be calculated based on the state of the field at the end of the match, notable exceptions being autonomous bonuses and penalties. This, however, is not such a year, so I see no other way to ensure games are always judged properly.