Should teams be allowed to decline a replay?

[BigJ]

A similar situation happened at Midwest, there may be other extenuating circumstances but in QF 4-2 a blue score wasn't counted for about 20 seconds because it snuck into the low goal, thus the pedestal never turned on. The blue alliance ended up winning by 60ish points. They didn't call a field fault during the amtch, and we didn't ask for a replay because we ended up winning by quite a margin.

Drive teams, on the blue alliance at least, were not notified that the next match was a replay until 10 seconds before auton started. The MC actually had to be corrected in the match intro.

(Full disclosure: my team was on the blue alliance)

[Jay O'Donnell]

Not sure if this counts as a "Field Fault", but at UNH a call was made incorrectly as a rule was quoted incorrectly by a ref (I completely forget what the penalty was). We won the match anyways, but we were offered a replay if we wanted it. Since we won the match, we declined to have a replay.

[BBray_T1296]

Perhaps, but it would only work if there is a unanimous 6 team agreement to decline the replay

[BandChick]

More than declining a replay, I wish teams this season could decline a foul.

Let's say for example, that Team A receives a G-28 for damaging something on Team B, but Team B did not actually took only superficial, not-functionally detrimental damage. It would be great if Team B could talk to the Head Ref and say "We decline this penalty, score the match without it."

[J_Miles]

Originally Posted by BandChick

More than declining a replay, I wish teams this season could decline a foul.

Let's say for example, that Team A receives a G-28 for damaging something on Team B, but Team B did not actually took only superficial, not-functionally detrimental damage. It would be great if Team B could talk to the Head Ref and say "We decline this penalty, score the match without it."

It's interesting that you should describe this. One such situation happened EXACTLY this way at the Michigan Waterford District, except the penalty was G27 rather than G28. I was a referee at that event and remember the match. 469 - Las Guerrillas - were playing against 3098 - The Captains. During the match, as 469 was preparing a truss shot, 3098 hit the 469 robot rather hard. This impact was against 469's Intake bar. The shot went short and thereafter in the match all of 469's shots misfired. The head referee as well as the two referees standing near the incident determined that 3098 had caused damage to the 469 machine, and as such assessed a G27 technical foul. 469's alliance won the match because of this. A couple of matches later, Dan Kimura of Las Guerrillas came to the scorers' table and head referee and explained that the 3098 contact was not the culprit for the malfunctioning catapult. After a discussion the foul was removed from the match, which ultimately changed the outcome.

Recall that the rules are the rules, but that according to the handbook the Head Referee has final say in matters of the field. I felt personally that this was handled very well by head ref Gary Voshol. I had initially been uneasy about calling the foul but the referees closer to the incident agreed and I absolutely trusted their judgment. It was an incredible amount of class and a wonderful example of Gracious Professionalosm from Mr. Kimura and Team 469 in that situation, as well as an example of how an interpretation of the rules "went right."

[BrendanB]

I believe so.

During semi final 2-3 at UNH there was a dead ball debacle that hurt our alliance. The match ended with our alliance in the lead however the head ref/FTA decided to call it a field fault because the refs made a mistake and declared a rematch. The problem was their mistake was in not giving our alliance a new ball in the final 20 seconds of the match which would not have helped our opponents beat us. The next match was replayed due to a pedestal issue and our alliance did with the following match.

In the above case, having to replay the rubber match of the semis is a HUGE deal and since they replayed it after the winning alliance was hurt and granting us our ball would not have changed the outcome of the match we should have been allowed to decline the replay.

[Ginger Power]

I completely agree that teams should be allowed to decline a replay given that all 6 teams are in agreement. However, I would also like to see the opposite be able to happen. If the red alliance were to win a match because of a field fault that impeded the blue alliance (and the field fault wasn't called) then I would like for the red alliance to have the ability to redo the match (again if all 6 teams are in agreement).

[bobl]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

I believe so.

During semi final 2-3 at UNH there was a dead ball debacle that hurt our alliance. The match ended with our alliance in the lead however the head ref/FTA decided to call it a field fault because the refs made a mistake and declared a rematch. The problem was their mistake was in not giving our alliance a new ball in the final 20 seconds of the match which would not have helped our opponents beat us. The next match was replayed due to a pedestal issue and our alliance did with the following match.

In the above case, having to replay the rubber match of the semis is a HUGE deal and since they replayed it after the winning alliance was hurt and granting us our ball would not have changed the outcome of the match we should have been allowed to decline the replay.

Team 58 was part of this alliance and I found this particular situation frustrating as a spectator because it wasn't explained very well. I could not understand why the match was replayed when the fault affected only our alliance and we had outscored the opposing alliance by a comfortable margin.

I feel that after the circumstances of the fault have been explained to each alliance the alliance that was impacted by the fault should be allowed to refuse the replay. However, In the spirit of Gracious Professionalism, the alliance that was not affected by the fault should say that the fault made no difference in the outcome and graciously deny the replay.

If both alliances are affected, The Head Ref should make the call.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by bobl

However, In the spirit of Gracious Professionalism, the alliance that was not affected by the fault should say that the fault made no difference in the outcome and graciously deny the replay.

And this is why I think you should NOT be able to decline a replay. After every match that is to be replayed everyone would question the GP of a team that decides to not decline the replay. I don't want to put teams in that situation. I've really gotten sick of all of the accusatory threads popping up on CD lately and I don't really want to read any more of them.

[tim-tim]

I have seen instances where the head ref has consulted an alliance(s) before making a final decision. Some of these are to let the teams know before it is announced and start storming etc. Other times it is to see if the blue alliance wants to replay the match even though the "field fault" 'hurt' or 'inhibited' only their alliance's play and blue still won.

I think these are the best ways to handle the situations. As they are typically rare; although seemingly to have a higher frequency of occurrence this year.

[Oblarg]

This happened at Greater DC this year - during finals, the pedestal for our alliance would not light up. At the time, we had a sizeable lead, and probably could have won by playing defense for the rest of the match, but the match was replayed.

We ended up winning the finals anyway, but yeah, I think you should be able to decline the replay in that situation.

[Briansmithtown]

There was a match that we lost, but it was 1 v 3 (one robot was disabled from the start, the other one tipped in autonomous mode) and we only lost by like 23 points.. the score was 130 to 107... there was no ball on the field for about 17 seconds, and the field reset crew messed up, and you can actually see it in the video we have... but the Head referee , after a few matches, decided not to... and we believe it really hurt us when it came to alliance selections. we saw what happened, and our robot pushed the ball in using the opposing teams robot... we think for a hi-tech event such as FIRST is, there should be like one challenge per team for like 20 seconds to prove that teams point.

[rich2202]

IMHO, if the Head Ref is on the ball (so to say), the game is stopped when a field fault happens. Then, there is no question about a replay.

[dougwilliams]

Originally Posted by rich2202

IMHO, if the Head Ref is on the ball (so to say), the game is stopped when a field fault happens. Then, there is no question about a replay.

Having gone through this during the season, that apparently is very subjective.

From the manual (with my emphasis): If, in the judgment of the Head Referee, an “ARENA fault” occurs that affects the outcome of the MATCH, the MATCH will be replayed.

Although I think the bulk of people here and in FIRST like to believe that the competition, robot building process, scouting... the whole season is run on metrics and clearly defined events - I struggle to find any that don't really come down to one person's opinion.

I think that's an important lesson for anyone entering a STEM field though - as much as engineers try and contain problems to objectively evaluated criteria, time and time again real answers are subjective.

[Doc Wu]

I think the LOSING alliance should be allowed to decline a replay.

If they feel the outcome of the match was fair and that they couldn't win in a rematch, it would be Gracious Professionalism to decline the replay and not delay the other matches.