FRC Blogged - Doing the Right Thing

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by EricH

After the 2010 IRI eliminations, IIRC. ....about the minibots that year, and the coop bridges (and Einstein) the next year, that there was no lengthy CD discussion about the tiebreakers.

Ah... that would explain it, then... 2010 was the last year that I was actively involved on a team, so I haven't been following the tournament rules as closely since then... and there was certainly enough 'new' in 2011 to talk about aside from something so rare as a tied elimination match.

I can't deny the efficiency of settling an elimination series this way, but really... in all the FRC, FTC and VRC events that I've attended that have gone "over time", I don't think the "tie breaker match" has ever been the main cause. No doubt it happened at IRI once, but it seems weird that an anomaly at an off-season event should impact 'real' FRC events.

Anyway, thanks for the update... and I should really be focusing on the GP shown last weekend, as described in the blog post... but I will be cheerfully grumpy for the next while about how "it was better in the old days when we settled ties the honorable way!"

Jason

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I can't deny the efficiency of settling an elimination series this way, but really... in all the FRC, FTC and VRC events that I've attended that have gone "over time", I don't think the "tie breaker match" has ever been the main cause. No doubt it happened at IRI once, but it seems weird that an anomaly at an off-season event should impact 'real' FRC events.

IRI was the last straw, but not the only instance of this occurrence, and it was not an anomaly. 2010 was a particularly bad year for ties due to the low "resolution" of scores that year. The WPI regional had two different quarterfinals go to 5 and 6 matches respectively that year. Many other events had similar situations. Like others have mentioned, after an extra hour of quarterfinals matches, everyone just wants to be done with it.

There is a fairness aspect to it as well. Once again going to the WPI quarterfinals, the other two alliances both had essentially an hour+ of downtime waiting for their opponents to be decided. Meanwhile, the #2 seed had to go straight into semis after a grueling 3 extra matches, the last of which with only the standard 6 minute break in between. Their first semifinal was a tie as well, leading to another two back-to-back matches before they made it through to finals. 1735's drive motors overheated in the finals after having played 9 nearly consecutive matches. When all was said and done, 1735 and their partners 2370 and 663 played 11 matches in eliminations, only one less than they did through qualifiers.

This was an extreme example, but it and other similar episodes around the country did prompt the tiebreaker rules to come into play for the sake of the teams, as well as the audience and volunteers. I guarantee that alliance would have performed significantly better in the finals had their robot and driveteam not run through the equivalent of a second regional in just 3 hours. While the games since have not had the propensity for ties that 2010 did, it has come up a few times (including Galileo Semifinals in 2011).

I agree with you that it's much more exciting (in general) to play out ties...but after having been through WPI 2010, I understand the necessity of having tiebreakers in place.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

2010 was a particularly bad year for ties due to the low "resolution" of scores that year.

In 2010, ties occurred in ~10% of qualification matches
In 2011, ties occurred in ~4% of qualification matches
in 2012, ties occurred in ~3% of qualification matches
So far in 2013, ties have occurred in ~1% of qualification matches

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

IRI was the last straw, but not the only instance of this occurrence, and it was not an anomaly. 2010 was a particularly bad year for ties due to the low "resolution" of scores that year....
I agree with you that it's much more exciting (in general) to play out ties...but after having been through WPI 2010, I understand the necessity of having tiebreakers in place.

I went and took a look at the first 15 regionals of 2010... after all, 2010 was regarded as "a particularly bad year" due to the game design. 12/15 had no tiebreaker matches. 2/15 had one tiebreaker match. WPI had five tiebreaker matches.

I'll admit that five tiebreakers is a bit excessive, and could be seen as being responsible for delaying the completion of the event, however there were a total of 22 elimination matches played, including the tiebreakers. An event should be prepared for 21 elimination matches, assuming each of the seven series goes to three matches. So technically, even with all those extra tiebreakers, the event would have gone one match... six minutes... beyond what would be achieved in a "longest case" scenario using the current rules.

I submit that based on the 2010 elimination rounds that tiebreakers are an anomaly and are rarely (if ever) the root cause for an event running beyond time limits.

I'll admit that there needs to be something in the rules to allow events to finish at a reasonable time, however I'll also submit that saving six minutes is hardly worth giving up the "tiebreaker" match. And while I'm happy to admit that this totally falls into the category of "first world problems", I'll argue that we should settle ties on the field... in the finals at the very least!

Jason

P.S. at the other two events that had tiebreakers, they both ocurred in the finals... the perfect time!

Oh, yeah... full disclosure... I'm a bit of a hockey fan, and playoff games aren't considered "epic" until at least the third overtime period, so there might be a bit of a pre-existing bias.