Should teams be allowed to decline a replay?

[S.P.A.M.er 17]

From T16

If, in the judgment of the Head Referee, an “ARENA fault” occurs that affects the outcome of the MATCH, the MATCH will be replayed.

Aerial Assist has seen its fair share of field faults due to various reasons. A field fault can severely hinder an alliance's ability to play a match. What if, however, the hindered alliance is able to cope with the fault, and still manages to squeeze out the win? Should the affected alliance be allowed to decline the replay?

An example would be this. Blue Alliance vs. Red Alliance in an Elimination match. Red Alliance's pedestal does not light up. Red Alliance switches to a defensive strategy since they are in the lead anyway. The Red Alliance wins.

This happened at an event I was attending. The head ref decided that the field fault changed the flow of the match (Red team being forced to play defense) which in turn could have affected the outcome of the match.

With no rule in place, the subject of declining a replay was heavily discussed between Red, Blue, and the ref (Red pro declining, Blue against). As I said, the decision for a replay was made.

Should Affected teams be able to decline a replay? With the above example being an Elimination match, no qualifier points were at stake. Should declines only be allowed in Eliminations? Or should an alliance that was satisfied with their performance, despite a field fault hindering them, be able to decline a replay at any time (thinking that the win is much more important than maybe getting a couple more assist points in a qualifying match).

Just to clarify, I am not asking what should have been done at the event I attended. I'm just curious if people think that there can be merit for an alliance to decline a replay. Or, as the rule is written, should it always be up to the head ref to declare replays. Also since Q+A is open until the 22nd, this would be the best time for those teams competing next week to ask for an official response.

Finally, Good Luck to all those competing at Championship.

[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.

[RufflesRidge]

In eliminations it shouldn't be necessary. In eliminations the only "outcome" of the match is who wins. If the only alliance that suffered due to an Arena Fault wins anyway, the outcome of the match was not affected. Due to all of the tiebreakers this is much tougher in Quals.

[JosephC]

I believe that in eliminations, An alliance should be able to decline a replay on a field fault that affected only to them.

During Finals 2 at Waterford, a strand of red lights fell down in front of the red goal in the last 6 seconds, resulting in an automatic replay due to a field fault. The Red alliance was leading by 60 points, and since the lights were dangling in front of their own goal, it should of been entirely in their right to say "No, we don't want a replay".

Originally Posted by Nyxyxylyth

Another weird situation popped up I think at Waterford - an underdog alliance was 100 points ahead with only 20 seconds to go, and the lights on the top of their goal suddenly fell halfway off, blocking the opening. The FTAs declared a field fault. I don't remember which match it was, but if memory serves, they lost in the replay.

They actually won the replay, and the match after, winning the competition.

[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).

[Rob3653]

Originally Posted by S.P.A.M.er 17

From T16
This happened at an event I was attending. The head ref decided that the field fault changed the flow of the match (Red team being forced to play defense) which in turn could have affected the outcome of the match.

This match (QF 2.1 if i'm not mistaken) was very confusing for the Head ref, and both alliances. Because the confusion with the dead ball, all of red played defense against the 1 blue bot trying to score. Because this defense, it interrupted the flow of the match... which then led to a replay(according to what the head ref told me).

On the other hand, I really enjoyed playing against you guys in SFL and Orlando; you guys have a fantastic team!

[S.P.A.M.er 17]

Originally Posted by Rob3653

This match (QF 2.1 if i'm not mistaken) was very confusing for the Head ref, and both alliances. Because the confusion with the dead ball, all of red played defense against the 1 blue bot trying to score. Because this defense, it interrupted the flow of the match... which then led to a replay(according to what the head ref told me).

On the other hand, I really enjoyed playing against you guys in SFL and Orlando; you guys have a fantastic team!

Yea that was the one. Our argument was that we could have chose to play defense anyway. As you said, he didn't think that his mistake should change how the match was played, so that was the reason for the replay. It didn't affect us too much, but I could see it knocking out a team in the future, which would not lead to happy team.

Either way it was a great event. . It was great talking to your team while you were across from us in Orlando. We loved your projector with the stream.

[tStano]

Originally Posted by BigJ

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 match, and we didn't ask for a replay because we ended up winning by quite a margin.

The way the rule is already: "affects the outcome of the MATCH" means to me that there should not be a replay called in a situation where the team who the field fault detrimentally affected still won. The match outcome would be the same had the field fault not happened.

Now, as my team's story shows, thats not how its actually being called. Not sure if its a "busy ref" thing or an "I interpret the rule differently than the GDC" thing.

If its a "busy ref" thing, declining a replay should be allowed for the circumstances where the ref calls it wrongly, although, the rule being followed(to my interpretation), it shouldn't ever be necessary.

If its an "I interpret the rule differently than the GDC" thing, and the GDC wants a replay if there is a field issue, no matter what, declination of replays should not be allowed. I assume the GDC knows what they're doing, and have a good reason for it. Maybe they think that too many variables are screwed up and its impossible to know who'd have won if the fault hadn't happened(stronger defense because of lack of ball, etc). If thats the case, they should remove the clause about "affects the outcome of the MATCH" because it causes a great deal of confusion.

I'd disagree with this line of reasoning; replaying every match with a field fault, but I'm not the GDC, and I'm sure they've thought about it more than I have. It is their job.

[Jared]

I think they should. At one of our events, we played what was probably our best qualifying match ever, then when there were three seconds left, the match was stopped, because a hot goal for autonomous was not entered for a team, which wouldn't have effected the outcome of the match. During that match, our intake was slightly damaged, so we didn't do as well in the replay, which was also because the other alliance knew our strategy.

I'm also not a fan of waiting to explain why replays happened until after the replayed match is over. I know that for our team, in eliminations, we never have time to wait in the question box between matches to ask why our matches were replayed, so we never find out.

[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.