Should teams be allowed to decline a replay?

[JB987]

Originally Posted by 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.

So by extension, every time a team misses even one single point due to maybe a bump or tear in the carpet that wasn't fixed by field resetters before the match they should ask the FTA for a replay, even if they won or lost the match by 200 points because total points may cause a team to miss out on a higher seeding at the end of qualifications? There is a common sense reason "outcome of the match" has traditionally been considered as who won or lost the match itself...the need to keep replays at a bare minimum so an event can be held in a reasonable amount of time.

[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.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by JB987

So by extension, every time a team misses even one single point due to maybe a bump or tear in the carpet that wasn't fixed by field resetters before the match they should ask the FTA for a replay, even if they won or lost the match by 200 points because total points may cause a team to miss out on a higher seeding at the end of qualifications? There is a common sense reason "outcome of the match" has traditionally been considered as who won or lost the match itself...the need to keep replays at a bare minimum so an event can be held in a reasonable amount of time.

They should certainly feel empowered to ask. As the rule states, it's up to the head referee. Recall that the referee is being asked to judge not only whether the outcome was affected, but whether a field fault existed at the time. The referee may rule that slight variations in the surface of the carpet don't represent a violation of the game specifications, and are thus not a fault.

[Swan217]

How about designing a game that doesn't rely so heavily on the split-second decisions of volunteers, who are human and make mistakes?

A counterargument is that even if you think a field fault didn't affect the outcome of the match, it did. If you didn't get your next cycle in time, you make a decision to play more aggressive defense, which could affect the "losing" team's score.

I think that it's interesting that this is apparently the first game in FIRST history with field faults. Heavens to murgatroyd.

[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.

[Brandon_L]

Originally Posted by Swan217

I think that it's interesting that this is apparently the first game in FIRST history with field faults. Heavens to murgatroyd.

Field faults have always been around.

They're just much, much more frequent this year.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by Swan217

How about designing a game that doesn't rely so heavily on the split-second decisions of volunteers, who are human and make mistakes?

A counterargument is that even if you think a field fault didn't affect the outcome of the match, it did. If you didn't get your next cycle in time, you make a decision to play more aggressive defense, which could affect the "losing" team's score.

I think that it's interesting that this is apparently the first game in FIRST history with field faults. Heavens to murgatroyd.

Does a fault that occurs with 5 seconds to go with no balls on the field affect the outcome of the match?

[Martian86]

Originally Posted by JB987

Does a fault that occurs with 5 seconds to go with no balls on the field affect the outcome of the match?

In a close match, definitely. Those five seconds could've been a truss shot.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Martian86

In a close match, definitely. Those five seconds could've been a truss shot.

Was the match within 10 points?

[Martian86]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Was the match within 10 points?

I'm under the impression that we're dealing in hypotheticals, so hypothetically, yes.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Martian86

I'm under the impression that we're dealing in hypotheticals, so hypothetically, yes.

What if it hypothetically wasn't?

[Martian86]

Originally Posted by Gregor

What if it hypothetically wasn't?

Then we'd be at the mercy of the head ref's judgement calls. If it was up to me (it's not) I'd probably call for the replay.

[JB987]

Would you call for a replay if there was a 200 point difference with 5 seconds left? 100 points? Where do you draw the line? It all comes down to the judgement of the head ref/ FTA and they have a reasonable schedule to keep.