Should teams be allowed to decline a replay?

[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.

[Chris is me]

To me, a Field Fault forces a replay because the field not operating correctly essentially means the teams on the field are no longer playing the game. The rules of each year's game define what is to be expected in each match. If the field changes mid match, they're simply playing a different game. Due to the way seeding works, this has consequences beyond just whether or not the field fault caused a loss when there would have been a win. It could affect the standings which impacts everyone at the event, and it's not fair for the standings to be impacted by sets of matches which did not follow the same rules as other matches.

By allowing teams to decline a replay you're essentially rewarding teams who find that not playing the game as defined in the manual was to their benefit. This opportunity is created randomly and not distributed evenly, so it's not fair to allow teams to decline a replay.

[JB987]

The manual clearly states a replay is to be granted if a field fault affects the outcome of a match. If one's concern is to protect the integrity of the event then perhaps the manual should be rewritten to say event instead of or in addition to match? The result of this of course would be an unmanageable number of challenges and replays. There is a practical, common sense, unlawyered reason the outcome of a match has been regarded as who won or lost a given match.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by 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.

This leads to the situation described above, where teams that do ask for a replay are considered "un-gracious" in certain cases. Not a good road to go down.