Should teams be allowed to decline a replay?

[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.

[Zaque]

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

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.

I wish I had thought to argue this during quarterfinals of Midwest. We ended up replaying the match, even though our goal did not light up for at least 10 seconds, two separate times. Another driver and I went to the question box, where the head ref told us we had won even with the pedestal error, so we went on our merry way. However, as we were setting up for our third match, the head ref came over and told us that we would be replaying the second match, because the other alliance argued that the pedestal error changed how the match was played.

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

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..

You bet it led to an unhappy team...

[dougwilliams]

(I'm ok with the concept of declining a replay if you were the winner and the cause of the replay negatively affected your time).

More importantly, I think that in cases of replays and re-scores - there should be an announcement (and maybe a written cutoff time for doing so). Our team had two situations this year where another team went to the ref afterward and had a discussion that led to replays/re-scores.

In both cases we never found out the actual reasons, and neither alliance nor opposition teams had the same story as to why we re-played or re-scored.

Communication is key - all teams should walk away with the exact same understanding, and that didn't happen.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

Originally Posted by Zaque

Another driver and I went to the question box, where the head ref told us we had won even with the pedestal error, so we went on our merry way. However, as we were setting up for our third match, the head ref came over and told us that we would be replaying the second match, because the other alliance argued that the pedestal error changed how the match was played.

You bet it led to an unhappy team...

Introductions were going on and the FTAs came to our alliance station (blue) and told us to huddle up and explained that the red alliance had protested the previous match due to the blue pedestal not lighting affecting the flow of the match and that after conferring with HQ the match would be replayed. We (blue) had no say, no recourse, and no time to settle down from this news as the match was about to start. Not only did this mentally affect our alliance, but now the red alliance (who won match 1) could play this match very differently because they had "nothing to lose" rather than it being a rubber match.

Should it have been a replay? Yes. It was a clear field fault. Why it took so long to communicate that to our alliance, after the head ref said we're good (and his ruling is supposed to be final), I have no idea, and I'll never understand. I would been fine with replaying the match had we been told up front it was a replay.

If replays were granted consistently, there would be no question of whether to allow the affected team to deny the replay. I really could go either way on this, but I'm not okay with the FTAs calling HQ and overruling the head ref at the urging of the opposing alliance (which is what APPEARED to have happened at Midwest).

[pyroslev]

Interesting Question to say the least. I can think of a match or two where there were replays but declines would have been used. But back to the initial question.

I know in FTC, the replay decision is on the Head Referree but often that call is made off of the FTA/Tech support staff's findings. (Been on that hot plate enough times as FTC FTA)

<G14> Matches are replayed at the discretion of the Head Referee only under the following circumstances:
a. Failure of a Game Element that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
b. * c. omitted as they deal with loss of robot control.

I could see a rule added for declining replay of matches but there are a fair few questions/hypotheticals that would have to be worked out for it to ever end up in the manual.
Who would decline? Both alliances or the losing alliance? Would it be a decline by team? If so, what happens if it is a three for and three against split? What justification would you have to give for declining? So many more that it borders on the nutty.

If it were done in the eliminations, I could see it being a potential decline on the part of the losing alliance and treated as a decline card similar to the time out.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by dougwilliams

(I'm ok with the concept of declining a replay if you were the winner and the cause of the replay negatively affected your time).

More importantly, I think that in cases of replays and re-scores - there should be an announcement (and maybe a written cutoff time for doing so). Our team had two situations this year where another team went to the ref afterward and had a discussion that led to replays/re-scores.

In both cases we never found out the actual reasons, and neither alliance nor opposition teams had the same story as to why we re-played or re-scored.

Communication is key - all teams should walk away with the exact same understanding, and that didn't happen.

We learned at Champs the hard way last year that we need to have a member of the drive team hang around the question box through at least the match following the one we just completed...every time and maybe to remind the head ref and FTA that a replay due to a field fault should only take place if the outcome of the match is affected, not because an opponent's ranking was lowered due to loss of a few autonomous points...or any other hypothetical issue that may arise.

[mschwab013]

Originally Posted by JB987

We learned at Champs the hard way last year that we need to have a member of the drive team hang around the question box through at least the match following the one we just completed...every time and maybe to remind the head ref and FTA that a replay due to a field fault should only take place if the outcome of the match is affected, not because an opponent's ranking was lowered due to loss of a few autonomous points...or any other hypothetical issue that may arise.

Agreed. I was a driver in this match and was shocked to learn that the replay request was approved because the outcome was not affected

[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.

[Tristan Lall]

The replay isn't only for the benefit of the affected teams, it's also (and more importantly) for the benefit of the competition. It eliminates a situation where the match wasn't conducted within the agreed-upon parameters. Teams should not be able to decline on behalf of the entire competition, because everyone has an interest in knowing that the rankings reflect the outcomes of correctly-determined matches.

Also, the outcome of the match ought to be defined¹ to include the score, because the rankings consider the score in addition to the win/loss/tie result. (Note that in some FRC games, only the score really mattered.) As a result, the outcome is almost always affected by a field fault.

¹ It's not defined in the rules.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by JB987

We learned at Champs the hard way last year that we need to have a member of the drive team hang around the question box through at least the match following the one we just completed...every time and maybe to remind the head ref and FTA that a replay due to a field fault should only take place if the outcome of the match is affected, not because an opponent's ranking was lowered due to loss of a few autonomous points...or any other hypothetical issue that may arise.

Are seeding points not part of the outcome of the match?

[MaxMax161]

Hey, a game theory question that we can answer conclusively with logic! These are fun

I'm going to go with quick and dirty logic because it's easy to read and the jumps aren't too big. Although if it's unclear I'd be happy to write up a longer more formal version.

--I think without the head ref bringing in subjective data always forcing replays or always allowing the affected alliance to decline them are the only two options.
--I am assuming alliances will only decline a replay if the outcome of the original match was favorable for them.
--The more consistent alliance would win more replay matches than the inconsistent alliance, so forcing a replay is in their favor.
--The inconsistent alliance is more likely to lose the replay, therefore they gain more by being allowed to decline it, so allowing declining replays is in their favor.

Assuming I haven't made any mistakes the above should be conclusive. Not comes the subjective part; I personally think consistency should be rewarded over inconsistent peaking, but that's just my preference.

[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.