Disqualifications...

[JVN]

Hey Guys,
I've been recently thinking about match DQ's, and the ramifications they have on teams and alliances.

If a team gets DQ'd for some offense, how should it affect their alliance? Should both teams in the alliance be DQ'd? Should just the offending team? (assuming we have 2 team alliances next year )

How should this affect them at the end of the match? Would they receive a "0" score? Would both teams? What if the QP calculation changed (i.e. instead of getting 3x the loser's score, with a DQ you got 1/2x the loser's score)?

How should this work in the elimination rounds? (assuming we have eliminations next year )

I know it seems like a simple question, but...
I'm curious to hear what the community thinks about this stuff...

So what do you think?

[Matt Reiland]

I would say that in qualification rounds the team that does the deed to get DQ's should be the one that gets DQ'd not the alliance. Its already enough of a crap-shoot in the qualifications only to get zero points because of a partner that you didn't pick.

In the eliminations however the teams are chosen and if one of the partners gets a DQ I think the alliance should get the DQ as an alliance.

[Pat Fairbank]

I agree, I don't think the team paired with the DQ'd team should get the same score. I don't think that DQ'd teams should get zero QPs though, considering some of the stupid things that get teams disqualified, i.e. going beneath the goals in 2002.

Also, I don't think the opposing alliance should be rewarded just because the other team screwed up. For example, in 2002, at the Canadian Regional, we had a robot that kept breaking down, so we were doing really bad in the rankings, then we played a match in which the other team was DQ'd because their go-home device rolled under a goal, and we got three times our own score, which turned out to be some sort of national record. That one match moved us up something like 20 spots. So I think that the winning team should only get maybe 2 x their score, while the DQ'd team gets 1/2, and the other losing team gets their own score.

[henryBsick]

I think there should be no DQ's. If a robot does something wrong whether it would be an accumulation of penalties or flipping, or something, they should get turned off that way the alliance is not hurt, but the robot is punished. If you let the robot run and then at the end, nullify the alliance score, then the ramifications of the match are completely different as opposed to shutting the target robot down because of its wrong doings. The alliance partner still has a chance to run and get a score greater than 0.

[shyra1353]

Originally posted by Henry_222
I think there should be no DQ's. If a robot does something wrong whether it would be an accumulation of penalties or flipping, or something, they should get turned off that way the alliance is not hurt, but the robot is punished. If you let the robot run and then at the end, nullify the alliance score, then the ramifications of the match are completely different as opposed to shutting the target robot down because of its wrong doings. The alliance partner still has a chance to run and get a score greater than 0.

i know that this has been mentioned before in a different thread (cannot remember which one) but if the robot is shut off after he/she does something wrong, than it may be beneficial to the team .. like if it was stopped at the bottom of the ramp on the other team's side (using last years game as an example)

personally i like the idea that was mentioned above of having the alliance only being penalized in the elimination rounds.

[Ben Piecuch]

Since the 2v2 format began, FIRST has stressed the "Co-opertition" aspect of the events. I feel that an alliance is just that, and if one team performs an act suitable for DQ, the alliance should be DQ'd.

Let's look at an example of why I feel this needs to be an alliance DQ. If an alliance gains an unfair advantage and goes on to win the match, the loosing alliance suffers and they have no way to challenge this. Of the winning alliance, one team will have their score increased due to the win, while the other may suffer a zero, or some form of DQ. I don't see this as being fair.

Now, how about another form of DQ... The individual DQ'd team's score is not added to the alliance score. Now, as the points are tallied, the 2nd team on the alliance needs to outscore the other alliance. This makes scoring difficult (who scored what), but it almost guaranties a victory for the other alliance.

One more scenario, would be to disable the infracting team. Would a period of 10 seconds be enough, 30 seconds, how about the remainder of the match? The difficulty I see in this is determining which robot to turn off. I think the refs have enough time figuring out the action in the game, never mind which of the Blue/Red robots is actually causing the DQ. This solution could lead to mistakes by the refs, which could not be corrected in the score at a later point.

So, I think the alliance needs to be responsible for the infractions. Whether their score goes to zero, or they have points deducted is another issue. That should vary with the severity of the infraction.

BEN

[Eric Bareiss]

I agree with Ben that the whole alliance should be DQ'd. FIRST is using the game to mirror real worl experiences. You guys say it's not fair because you didn't even pick the other team. Sometimes in life you don't get to pick the other people or companies you work with, and if they screw up, you go down with them.

[Jeff Waegelin]

Originally posted by Eric Bareiss
I agree with Ben that the whole alliance should be DQ'd. FIRST is using the game to mirror real worl experiences. You guys say it's not fair because you didn't even pick the other team. Sometimes in life you don't get to pick the other people or companies you work with, and if they screw up, you go down with them.

I disagree. There's no reason why a team that does nothing wrong should be punished for their alliance partner's actions, especially in the qualifying rounds. Sure, I can agree to that in the elims, but I think that in the qualifiers, the team that didn't get DQed should be unaffected.

[BandChick]

I agree with Jeff on this one. It is unfair duing qualifying rounds to disqualify the whole alliance, but i do feel that during elimations the whole alliance should be disqualified. you are working together as a team at this point, and your mistake is their mistake. it's a huge thought to take into consideration before you do something penalizing.

[gsensel]

I agree with Jeff on this one. It is unfair duing qualifying rounds to disqualify the whole alliance, but i do feel that during elimations the whole alliance should be disqualified. you are working together as a team at this point, and your mistake is their mistake. it's a huge thought to take into consideration before you do something penalizing.

I agree with these two.

[kevin.li.rit]

I think only one team getting DQ'd in Qualifications is a good idea. However since you do get to choose your partenrs for Eliminations the entire alliance should be disqualified.

Our Quater Final Match In New York exposed a problem with they're DQ rules. The Pius Princesses, not fully understanding the rules, put a crate under team 19's robot and disabled it. They were disqualified but because they won the match before they got to advance. We eventually got to replay the match because everyone agreed that it was only fair. But it exposed a serious problem. What if the other team intentionally disabled your robot somehow after they won the first match? They would get disqualified but they would advance.

I think they should ad some ability to replay Eliminations matches if the infraction was unintentional. But if it's blatant cheating or rule breaking they should be dropped from the Finals.