Eliminations replay card

[Ben Wolsieffer]

Originally Posted by blazingbronco18

Yes those are my concerns as well. One possible way to control them would be to have F.I.R.S.T set the standards on when the card may be used. Thus preventing an alliance from using it for reasons such as a toppled 6 stack.

That can lead to further problems, though, because even if it was only allowed to be used in case of a communication issue, it would be difficult to differentiate between a legitimate problem and a team pressing the "reboot roboRIO" button to allow a replay after they knocked over a stack.

[rich2202]

That's the purpose of best 2 out of 3.

If you want one and done, then a replay might be ok. But, it is likely the loosing team will be requesting the replay for whatever reason. So, you end up back at best 2 out of 3 with no replay (A looses and requests a replay, B looses the 2nd game, so requests a replay, now you are down to the 3rd match - winner take all).

[blazingbronco18]

Originally Posted by rich2202

That's the purpose of best 2 out of 3.

If you want one and done, then a replay might be ok. But, it is likely the loosing team will be requesting the replay for whatever reason. So, you end up back at best 2 out of 3 with no replay (A looses and requests a replay, B looses the 2nd game, so requests a replay, now you are down to the 3rd match - winner take all).

Yes that prevents such a scenario in a regular FRC game. But in a game based solely on averages one bad round might be enough to knock you out of the eliminations. I'm not saying its not recoverable but it makes it very unlikely.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by blazingbronco18

But in a game based solely on averages one bad round might be enough to knock you out of the eliminations.

Our team doesn't build the best robot each year, but we are known for being a reliable team - robot works, and drivers can drive.

Mulligans are good for teams with a high variance, and penalizes teams with low variance.

[KosmicKhaos]

What if a team is having a bad match so they decide to pull the Ethernet cord mid match causing them to "loose communications" should they get a replay for that. No.

[blazingbronco18]

Originally Posted by KosmicKhaos

What if a team is having a bad match so they decide to pull the Ethernet cord mid match causing them to "loose communications" should they get a replay for that. No.

Of course they don't deserve a replay for that. Such a scenario seems to be against the spirit of F.I.R.S.T. I'm pretty sure the FMS can detect which stations are plugged in and which aren't.

[ATannahill]

Originally Posted by blazingbronco18

Of course they don't deserve a replay for that. Such a scenario seems to be against the spirit of F.I.R.S.T. I'm pretty sure the FMS can detect which stations are plugged in and which aren't.

It can detect if the DS is unplugged, but it cannot detect why it was unplugged.

[Mike Bortfeldt]

For this year's game, you could implement a similar "best 2 out of 3" in semi's by only taking the average of the alliances two highest scores (drop the lowest). This would allow for a single bad match without replays. It really comes down to what the GDC was trying to do with this scoring format. If reliability and consistency was important, then the current method works fine.

Mike

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Mike Bortfeldt

For this year's game, you could implement a similar "best 2 out of 3" in semi's by only taking the average of the alliances two highest scores (drop the lowest). This would allow for a single bad match without replays. It really comes down to what the GDC was trying to do with this scoring format. If reliability and consistency was important, then the current method works fine.

Mike

This isn't a bad idea at all.
It would prevent the stupid failures, like 303 losing communication during their last semifinal at Tech Valley, and not making it to finals by one average point.
It would also allow alliances to show their best stuff and have it count. Never before has an alliance put up the regional high score in their last semifinal match, then not moved on to finals, like the 1126 Alliance at the Finger Lakes Regional.

That being said, a change like this would change the strategy of how the game is played. Right now depending on where your average score lies, you might choose to play a high risk or a low risk game. That would dissappear and make the preferred strategy in semis a high risk game.

Other thoughts?

[rdhester]

Originally Posted by Mike Bortfeldt

For this year's game, you could implement a similar "best 2 out of 3" in semi's by only taking the average of the alliances two highest scores (drop the lowest). This would allow for a single bad match without replays. It really comes down to what the GDC was trying to do with this scoring format. If reliability and consistency was important, then the current method works fine.

Mike

Interesting theory... lets apply CMP semifinals where 188,1678,1671,5012 beat 148,114,1923,900 by 1.7 points to make it to the finals and ultimately win. Removing the lowest score and averaging the other two results in

987 2826 4265 2512 277.0 avg
118 1678 1671 5012 242.5 avg
148 1114 1923 900 241.0 avg
1023 2338 3996 1089 226.0 avg

Same result with a 1.5 point differential instead of a 1.7. The lesson here is that you have no idea of the effect on your team as a result of others replays. Your bad match because of a loose fuse may be balanced with someone elses bad match because an RC was stuck on their can grabber.

[New Lightning]

I heartily support the use of a replay card. When I was a student in 2014 there was a call that I think after review might have overturned a tech foul which would have won us a second SF match. Whether or not the refs made the right call I'm not going to argue because in the end its there call. But if we had a replay card there would have been some more clarification on the call so we understood the call better.

[TedG]

I think this concept of a "redo card" for robot problems or operator error is a very bad idea. That's what this program is all about, design and build it well, robust, and consistent. It wouldn't be fair to the other teams who did their job.

As others have mentioned:

Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay

They have set the standards. Replays only occur after a field fault.

Originally Posted by The other Gabe

Part of FRC is to introduce you to how engineering is in real life: you can't use a redo card if you're landing something on the moon.

this is also unfair to the other teams, who successfully beat you, in part because they remembered to tighten every screw, plug in all the batteries, make sure their pneumatics were well built (cough cough my team in 2012 cough cough).

FRC, especially recycle rush, is about having the robot best made for the challenge win, and that includes durability (in my opinion anyways)

Recycle Rush is all about how well you've designed and built your robot, how well you work with your alliances, etc. Less about defense and offence (other than can grabbing). And I feel that you're given enough ways to overcome a mishap or two within the game. (this of course is just my opinion)

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by TedG

I think this concept of a "redo card" for robot problems or operator error is a very bad idea. That's what this program is all about, design and build it well, robust, and consistent. It wouldn't be fair to the other teams who did their job.

Then shouldn't we make every series a best of 1? Why give teams another chance in the eliminations if they should be ready to go from the beginning?

We wouldn't have had the 2013 World Champions is this were the case, among many others.

[TedG]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

Then shouldn't we make every series a best of 1? Why give teams another chance in the eliminations if they should be ready to go from the beginning?

We wouldn't have had the 2013 World Champions is this were the case, among many others.

That's not what I said, I feel the double elimination is important, that's what I meant here:

I feel that you're given enough ways to overcome a mishap or two within the game..

It's the redo card thing for the reasons mentioned before; team member operator error or robot malfunction.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by TedG

That's not what I said, I feel the double elimination is important, that's what I meant here:

It's the redo card thing for the reasons mentioned before; team member operator error or robot malfunction.

I see, I misinterpreted the redo card. You are right, my bad. In that case, I would've liked to see a crossover of the elimination format with the average system - basically, drop the lowest score out of three matches and average the rest.