Elimination Match Tie-Breaker

[Duke461]

I honestly don't see any reason for a tiebreaker. No, I'm not simply saying this because the tiebreaker did not favor my alliance.

First, the favorite matches i remember in my FIRST history was at the 2010 IRI competition. I believe it was the semifinals or so. If my memory serves me correctly, 33 and 1718 (and maybe some other teams) kept hanging at the last second. There were 2 or 3 tie matches and i believe it ended up going to 5 matches (TBA doesn't have results for it). By far the best FIRST experience I've had, and it was because of the ties.

Furthermore, it's not like ties would be substantially prolonging anything. 10 minutes more max added on per match. Not a big deal in my opinion when you're determining the best alliance of 3 robots made by a multitude of students working for over 6 weeks straight.

In addition to this, adding a tiebreaker is like getting rid of Overtime in Basketball. Think of some of the best sports games you have witnessed. There's a good chance it involved one overtime, if not more. How would you feel if your high school basketball team made a game-tying basket at the buzzer, only to be told that you still lose because one of your players fouled out? If you argue FIRST isn't trying to be a sport/be basketball, you're missing the point. Even if that point was relevant, why then are we cutting down the nets?

I'd love to hear some actual reasons as to why the tiebreaker is a good thing, instead of simply saying it's good.

-Duke

[Brian Ha]

The first time it had to be used was during quarterfinal match 1-1 where the 8th alliance toed and lost the tie breaker due to hybrid pnts. I was in that, match. Not fun losing by one point ill tell u that.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Duke461

How would you feel if your high school basketball team made a game-tying basket at the buzzer, only to be told that you still lose because one of your players fouled out?

If you knew this was a factor going into the game, would you have been more concerned about that player getting into foul trouble?

Here's what I like about it:

-It can shorten the length of the day. A five-match elimination round adds 20-30 minutes easily to the day, which gets significant in certain scenarios (such as starting Einstein on time).
-It's a tiebreaker based in clean play and excelling at the trickier parts of the game (hybrid and bridge). It's not a coin-flip.
-It can be explained in far less than a tweet. No head-scratching formulas (sup, Coopertition Award?), no insider knowledge required--if you understand the basic flow of the match, you understand the components of the tiebreaker.

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by Billfred

If you knew this was a factor going into the game, would you have been more concerned about that player getting into foul trouble?

Point understood, but would it still not detract from the game itself? Especially if the situation were similar to the situation at BMR, meaning you would have thought the game was going into OT until the refs told you about this obscure new rule, you'd go ballistic. Point there being, Overtime is what makes that game so incredibly exciting. Just like a tie match in robotics.

Originally Posted by Billfred

-It can shorten the length of the day. A five-match elimination round adds 20-30 minutes easily to the day, which gets significant in certain scenarios (such as starting Einstein on time).

Again, I point out 20-30 minutes relative to the time and effort put into every single robot. At the very least, don't have tiebreakers until World.

Originally Posted by Billfred

-It's a tiebreaker based in clean play and excelling at the trickier parts of the game (hybrid and bridge). It's not a coin-flip.

Why is roughly 1 minute and 30 seconds of time not relevant? I would think that if a team gets beat in autonomous, yet comes back and ties it, then their robots are probably a lot better, and deserve to move on. Tie-breaking choice aside, i refer back to the basketball analogy in two ways: One, fouls can be, in both basketball and Rebound Rumble, very demonstrative of one's grasp of strategy, which can't exactly be measured in ways besides the final outcome. If the final outcome is even, test their strategy in another match. Two, it's not fair to apply one facet of the game as a decisive measure of which alliance performed better. They don't tiebreak basketball games through three pointers made (eq. to auton), free throws made (eq. to bridge), etc. Why here?

Originally Posted by Billfred

-It can be explained in far less than a tweet. No head-scratching formulas (sup, Coopertition Award?), no insider knowledge required--if you understand the basic flow of the match, you understand the components of the tiebreaker.

I think a tie itself is much easier to comprehend then a tiebreaker. If the score is the same, no one won. Simple.

-Duke

[Peyton Yeung]

During qualifications, a tie means 1 point...better than losing but less than winning. I think i'd prefer it like that for elims.

[ttldomination]

As Billfred mentioned above, this happened twice at Peachtree, and both times it involved the 2nd seed. One time it lost us a match, the other time, it won us the regional.

I do not truly know if I am for it or against it. On one hand, our robot was running down to its limits that Saturday. I can say that removing extraneous matches tends to help keep the flow going, drivers engaged, and the robot fresh.

However, there's that settling feeling during a tie. That feeling where you know that there's one more match to battle it all out.

So once again, I don't know if I like it, but I have no complaints.

- Sunny G.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Duke461

Especially if the situation were similar to the situation at BMR, meaning you would have thought the game was going into OT until the refs told you about this obscure new rule, you'd go ballistic.

The Rebound Rumble rule is neither obscure nor new. It is openly displayed in the Elimination Scoring section of the Tournament manual, right after the part that says that an alliance must win two matches in order to advance to the next rung of the ladder, and it has been there since Kickoff.

When the tiebroken score caused a commotion at Boilermaker, it took me all of fifteen seconds to bring the relevant paragraph up on my iPod and show it to nearby confused spectators. It would have taken only ten seconds if I had known exactly where to find it, instead of merely knowing that it existed.

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The Rebound Rumble rule is neither obscure nor new. It is openly displayed in the Elimination Scoring section of the Tournament manual, right after the part that says that an alliance must win two matches in order to advance to the next rung of the ladder, and it has been there since Kickoff.

When the tiebroken score caused a commotion at Boilermaker, it took me all of fifteen seconds to bring the relevant paragraph up on my iPod and show it to nearby confused spectators. It would have taken only ten seconds if I had known exactly where to find it, instead of merely knowing that it existed.

I meant obscure to the general public and other fellow robotics members. I know this because nearly everybody (but not everyone) out on the field had no idea about it. And even if we knew of the rule beforehand, i refer back to my strategy point and my basketball game analogy.

-Duke

[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.

[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).

[Peyton Yeung]

Duke461

IIRC that also happened in the finals. I remember because my team helps by setting up and tearing down the event so we were there the entire time. It definitively makes it more nerve racking and I enjoy it.