Elimination Match Tie-Breaker

[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).