Do We have a trend here?

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by matt111

in st louis we had the tie situation. in quaterfinals, it went like this:
1.Red wins
2.Blue wins
3.Tie (blue has 20 more points, but gets 2 penalties )
4.Tie (blue has 10 more points, but gets 1 penalty )
5.Red wins (both blue bots tip over )

Actually, the situation in St. Louis is similar to most of the other times that the elimination rounds have gone on to a fourth or fifth match. It really comes down to this (and this is also true for the qualification matches): if you want to win, cleanly and quickly, then DON'T GET ANY PENALTIES! Penalties can (and many time do) make the difference between winning and losing a match.

There is a slightly subtle, but VERY important difference between this year's game and prior versions. In prior years, the rules typically stated "you can't do action xxxx during a match" but never really specified what would happen if you violated the rule. This year, almost all the rules are stated in the form "you can't do action xxxx during a match; if you do there will be a penalty of yyyy." Personally, I think this is a very good thing, and it helps remove a lot of ambiguity and inconsistency that we have seen in the past. Yes, there is still some, and things can still be cleaned up a little more, but I think this is a big step forward.

Originally Posted by DrBot

Think about the nationals where we repeat this in both the division and national titles. I agree the two game only rule last year was bad, but only bcause the score was based on QPs not overall points. If you lost a close first round, it was impossible to recover. If the two matches were based on winning points, there rarely would have to be a third tie breaking match. I strongly suggest the rules for the nationls be changed to make the winner the best 2 out of 3 if the teams split. So first team to win two rounds, or after three games, highest points scored by any team, highest qp by anyteam, coin toss.
...
Having teams play more than three matches to determine the round is not in anyone's best interest. I don't know how we get the attention of the rules committee on this.

Ain't gonna happen. The absolute worst think that FIRST could do at this point would be to change the scheme used to conduct the competitions. The robots have been built, they have been shipped to the competition sites, regional events have been held, games have been played, and we are nearly half way into the competition season. Changing the rules in as massive a way as you are suggesting would be an insane move for FIRST to make.

Plus, who says that having teams play just three rounds is some sort of panacea for ANY problem? Does anyone remember kick off? Does anyone remember the explicit and implicit message that FIRST has been giving this season? Does anyone remember the whole discussion about the necessity to BUILD ROBUST ROBOTS? If a team has built a robot that can just barely survive three rounds, but can't last through a fourth, then why should we be considering torqueing the entire competition process around just to appease them? Particularly when there are other teams that have listened to the ROBUSTNESS message, and designed their robots accordingly?

One more thought on this. From the audience entertainment/involvement standpoint, going into an extra "overtime" match or two due to a tie situation is GREAT! It very definitely adds to the drama of the event, and kicks the excitement level up a notch or two. Given the clearly stated objective from FIRST to increase the general public awareness and involvement, and to make the competitions more attractive to the public and mass media, this is a very good thing. The "unwashed masses" love to see the sort of extended play, sudden death, tie-breaker overtime matches that these opportunities create. It draws them in, helps make fans of them, and opens the door a little bit for FIRST to expand their message. Conversely, having the final game of an elimination match decided by the flip of a coin is about as boring and anti-climatic a way to determine a winner as I could possibly imagine.

Alan, I have read your messages on this topic (all of them, on this and other forii), but with all due respect, I gotta disagree with you on this one.

-dave