Playoff Overtime Matches

[orangemoore]

I was reading through the manual and noticed section 10.5. It certainly seems like the right way to resolve this issue.

10.5 Playoff MATCHES
In Playoff MATCHES, Teams do not earn Ranking Points; they earn a Win, Loss or Tie. Within each series of the Playoff MATCH bracket, the first ALLIANCE to win two (2) MATCHES will advance.

In the case where the Quarterfinal or Semifinal MATCH scores for both ALLIANCES are equal, the Win is awarded to the ALLIANCE per criteria listed in Table 10-2. A DISQUALIFIED Team, as determined by the Head REFEREE, causes their ALLIANCE to receive zero (0) MATCH points in a Playoff MATCH. In Finals MATCHES, the Champion ALLIANCE is the first ALLIANCE to win two (2) MATCHES. In the case where an ALLIANCE hasn’t won two (2) MATCHES after three (3) MATCHES, the Playoffs proceed with up to three (3) additional Finals MATCHES, called Overtime MATCHES, until an ALLIANCE has won two (2) Finals MATCHES. In the case where the Overtime MATCH scores for both ALLIANCES are equal, the win for that Overtime MATCH is awarded based on the criteria listed in Table 10-2.

I thought it was pretty interesting. I'm surprised I haven't seen any comments on it (Maybe I Missed It).

(This is on Page 106 of the Manual if want to read the whole section)

[BotDesigner]

2016 Einstein could have been so much better...

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

I was reading through the manual and noticed section 10.5. It certainly seems like the right way to resolve this issue.



I thought it was pretty interesting. I'm surprised I haven't seen any comments on it (Maybe I Missed It).

(This is on Page 106 of the Manual if want to read the whole section)

Sounds to me like the Einstein 2016 Rule. (Some might call it the 2056 Rule, but there were three other robots on that alliance.)

I'm a fan. If two alliances are that evenly matched, the result should be great for both the alliances and the spectators. However, did they miss a word on the last sentence? It sounds like the first overtime match would invoke the tiebreaker table if the score is the same, where the earlier part of the rule seems to say they'll play three.

[Lil' Lavery]

FWIW, Einstein was not the only event in 2016 decided on tie-breakers in the finals. It also happened at the Westtown MAR district event.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

FWIW, Einstein was not the only event in 2016 decided on tie-breakers in the finals. It also happened at the Westtown MAR district event.

I figured the number of events decided that way last year was greater than 1. But there's no easier way to get something changed than to have it happen on FIRST's biggest stage.

I threw a Q&A in just to see what happens here. It makes no sense to me that FIRST would dangle three Overtime MATCHes in here just to have the table all-but-certainly break the tie after one. And since Table 10-2 provides for a replay (the sixth level), but Section 10.2 limits the Overtime MATCHes to three...yeah. Probably just poking the bear to tighten up the deepest, darkest corner of the manual that will likely never be invoked.

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by Billfred

Sounds to me like the Einstein 2016 Rule.

Actually, Einstein now has it's own rule. Check out T16:

Originally Posted by 2017 FRC Game and Season Manual, T16

During the Einstein Finals, if the MATCH score of each ALLIANCE is equal, the MATCH is replayed.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Billfred

I figured the number of events decided that way last year was greater than 1. But there's no easier way to get something changed than to have it happen on FIRST's biggest stage.

I threw a Q&A in just to see what happens here. It makes no sense to me that FIRST would dangle three Overtime MATCHes in here just to have the table all-but-certainly break the tie after one. And since Table 10-2 provides for a replay (the sixth level), but Section 10.2 limits the Overtime MATCHes to three...yeah. Probably just poking the bear to tighten up the deepest, darkest corner of the manual that will likely never be invoked.

And answered:

It is not possible for an Overtime MATCH to end in a tie. If the MATCH Points are equal for the ALLIANCES in an Overtime MATCH, Table 10-2 is invoked, including, if necessary, replaying the MATCH per sort order 6. MATCH replays take the place of the original match, they do not count as an additional MATCH (e.g. replaying Overtime MATCH 1 does not make it Overtime MATCH 2).

Your second question does not apply, as it is not possible for three (3) Overtime MATCHES to be played without an ALLIANCE winning two (2) MATCHES.

The provision for up to three (3) Overtime MATCHES is necessary in the event that the first Overtime MATCH is reached without either ALLIANCE having won a MATCH.

(emphasis mine)

OK, that makes sense now. If there are 3 ties in the first 3 matches, then you go to OVERTIME without the possibility of ties, meaning there could be 3 OVERTIME matches.

If less than 3 ties in the first 3 matches, then there won't be 3 OVERTIME matches.

[RoboChair]

I have personally seen elims pushed to 5 total matches before a final winner was decided. Sac Regional 2007.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by RoboChair

I have personally seen elims pushed to 5 total matches before a final winner was decided. Sac Regional 2007.

Watched IRI '10? I think one of their semis ran to 6 or 7 matches, and several other series went to 4+.