Throwing Matches at the Olympics

[Akash Rastogi]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/sp...pagewanted=all


So what do you all think about this? Relevance to FRC?

I felt that many people who discussed it while I was listening to BBC radio had a great point about how the organizers of the event are at fault due to the formatting of the games, which gives teams incentive to purposely lose matches to gain an advantage and ultimately earn a gold medal (kinda like how the GDC had their ranking system in 2010?). They felt the players were victims of several systems in play, including, for example, China's strong control of their athletes and desire to pursue gold medals. Others, on the other hand, said that this is against the spirit of competition and the Olympics (sound familiar?). They also said it would be unfiar to the spectators/sponsors/patrons to throw a match.

Thought it was a pretty interesting thing to think about, even when related to FRC. Things like 2010 6v0 matches came to mind. While not exactly the same as the Olympics scenario since 6v0 aren't really thrown matches, and you don't throw matches in FRC to play weaker teams in the next round, I felt that you could still draw some connections.

What are your thoughts? (in general or related to FRC)

[IndySam]

It is a similar story, manipulating the standings to give you better position.

The big difference is that the players we warned not to do this and that there would be retributions for their actions.

Having two teams both trying to loose must have been quite something to see.

[JamesCH95]

In FRC, situations like 6v0 are a concrete strategy to gain an advantage in the standings, seed higher, and ultimately play weaker teams in eliminations. It is the same as the Badminton situation in my eyes. The difference is that it is considered "creative strategy" in FRC and considered "illegal" in the Olympics.

IMO the Olympic games should be bracketed to encourage every team to win to gain an advantage. If losing makes it ultimately easier to get a gold then there is a design flaw in the bracketing structure, but I don't think teams should be penalized for it because it is a sound strategy, if un-sportsman-like.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I think the main difference is that the players knowingly broke an official rule. I think if the rule had not been there it would be a different story and considered just simply good strategy. However the rule was there and they broke it by not giving it their all to win.

[Jon Stratis]

I see the 6v0 strategy as been very different. When it was done in FIRST, it was with the intention of scoring the most points for your team, thus increasing your standings. In the Olympics, it was with the intention of scoring the least number of points for your team in order to have an easier schedule. In FIRST, it was a legal strategy for playing the game. In the Olympics, it is not a legal strategy.

That said, both are unfortunate for the spectators. In both cases, you aren't showing a great match highlighting the competition between two teams. In the case of the Olympics, they only have the option of punishing those who performed these acts, and rightfully so. In the case of FIRST, the GDC is able to rework the rules through weekly updates in order to push play back towards what was intended.

[Chris is me]

In FRC, situations like 6v0 are a concrete strategy to gain an advantage in the standings, seed higher, and ultimately play weaker teams in eliminations. It is the same as the Badminton situation in my eyes.

An important detail: In competitive badminton, throwing matches is explicitly against the rules. (http://t.co/fV2CrsBo - section 4.5)

The "6v0" describes a variety of scenarios in 2010 that rarely included any collaboration between the alliances. After week 1, it never resulted in seeding higher than your opponents, but it would allow you to nearly match their seeding points instead of giving them the points to leapfrog you. I'd be happy to discuss the nuances of 2010 seeding strategy if anyone wants, but I think that's a bit off topic for this thread.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

An important detail: In competitive badminton, throwing matches is explicitly against the rules. (http://t.co/fV2CrsBo - section 4.5)

The "6v0" describes a variety of scenarios in 2010 that rarely included any collaboration between the alliances. After week 1, it never resulted in seeding higher than your opponents, but it would allow you to nearly match their seeding points instead of giving them the points to leapfrog you. I'd be happy to discuss the nuances of 2010 seeding strategy if anyone wants, but I think that's a bit off topic for this thread.

I understand there are differences between the two situations, and that in the badminton situation throwing a match was explicitly against the rules: I said it was considered "illegal".

In both cases it was beneficial for teams to intentionally lose a match, in this way the two situations are the same. I do not like that situation in any competition.

[JaneYoung]

Let's see .. what would the cheers be coming from the paying fans:

hit 'em high
hit 'em low
come on teams
let's throw throw throw
- the matches -

It's on the coaches.

Jane

[JonathanZur1836]

Regardless of what the technicalities are in the rules or rankings, I don't think that there should be a situation, in FRC or the Olympics, where losing actually gives you a better chance of winning in the end. To me, that defeats the purpose of sport and competition (not because winning is essential, but simply because of the idea of losing on purpose), especially in leagues like FRC or the Olympics, where the winners should win fair and square.

Take the NBA playoffs for instance, the way it works is that the top 8 teams from each conference move onto the playoffs; the 1st place team plays the 8th place team in the first round, the 2nd plays the 7th, and so on. At least from the point of view of statistics, the better your record, the higher your chance of winning. It is a simple system in which winning is always advantageous, and "throwing a game" always works against you in the end.

I think that ranking systems in games like Breakaway are too complicated, so complicated in fact that finding loopholes in them are easy. I think that simple is the way to go in terms of rankings.

[PVCpirate]

It appears the main reason for the strategy was to avoid playing Chinese teams, both to avoid playing each other and reducing the chances of a Chinese gold, or just because they are so good. I suspect the strategy came down from someone higher than the players, like a coach or director. I mostly blame whoever made the decisions to employ these strategies (players, coaches, or others), with some placed on the organizers for the tournament format. Offseason competitions is where I see the parallel to FRC, where the rule is often in place that you cannot pick inside the top 8, and I think this is a point against using that rule at those competitions.

[jcarr]

How does "throwing the game" compare to FTC strategies involving "scoring for your opponent" to increase your ranking points? Although the GDC effectively made it illegal last year, it was a big part of my team's strategy in Hot Shot. A key difference from the Olympic mess is that you still need to win the match in order to get the Qualifying Points. Still, scoring for the opponent really confused some parents and some opposing teams who thought it was unsportsmanlike. I thought it added a lot of strategy to the game and made it more interesting.

[Brandon Zalinsky]

I'll admit, the first time I saw that story, I thought "well that's just like sandbagging in FRC!" Not a good thing.

[GaryVoshol]

Oooo, I want a black card!

This is somewhat different than a 6v0 match. In 6v0 you are looking to gain qualifying points and overall increase your ranking. Playing to lose to get an "easier" opponent specifically goes against their rules.

In soccer there have been several wacky rule sets that allowed shenanigans like this to go on. In one Caribbean match years ago, the tournament rules somehow specified that if a particular team couldn't win, they'd be better off losing by more than 2 goals. Their opponent stood to gain if they won by fewer than 2 goals. For the last minutes of the match, both teams ended up trying to score in their own nets! FIFA (the international soccer body) has taken steps to curb such abuses - for instance, better balancing of groups for round-robin play and having the last matches in the group played at the same time so one result isn't known before the other game starts.

Back to FRC, I think this year's ranking scheme made it advantageous for your team to win, as compared to the 6v0 scenario. (OK, discount the coopertition bridge, because that skews things.) Maybe FRC also wanted to try to eliminate potential abuses of the system.

[CalTran]

After reading the article, and also having competed on Curie in 2010 and witnessing the 6v0 infamous Match 100 (iirc?), I think the difference is that certainly almost nobody knew that the strategy existed, let alone would work. The Olympians, however, are fully aware that intentionally throwing the match would result in their playing of a weaker team. As well, stated earlier is compliance with Section 4.5 of their rules explicitly prevents such action.

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/sp...pagewanted=all


So what do you all think about this? Relevance to FRC?



Thought it was a pretty interesting thing to think about, even when related to FRC. Things like 2010 6v0 matches came to mind. While not exactly the same as the Olympics scenario since 6v0 aren't really thrown matches, and you don't throw matches in FRC to play weaker teams in the next round, I felt that you could still draw some connections.

What are your thoughts? (in general or related to FRC)

But the big difference is that in the sport world. You are expected to win and the point of the games are to win.

In FRC that year, it didn't matter about the win, it mattered about the points more then W-L-T.