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.

[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.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by JB987

We learned at Champs the hard way last year that we need to have a member of the drive team hang around the question box through at least the match following the one we just completed...every time and maybe to remind the head ref and FTA that a replay due to a field fault should only take place if the outcome of the match is affected, not because an opponent's ranking was lowered due to loss of a few autonomous points...or any other hypothetical issue that may arise.

Are seeding points not part of the outcome of the match?

[MaxMax161]

Hey, a game theory question that we can answer conclusively with logic! These are fun

I'm going to go with quick and dirty logic because it's easy to read and the jumps aren't too big. Although if it's unclear I'd be happy to write up a longer more formal version.

--I think without the head ref bringing in subjective data always forcing replays or always allowing the affected alliance to decline them are the only two options.
--I am assuming alliances will only decline a replay if the outcome of the original match was favorable for them.
--The more consistent alliance would win more replay matches than the inconsistent alliance, so forcing a replay is in their favor.
--The inconsistent alliance is more likely to lose the replay, therefore they gain more by being allowed to decline it, so allowing declining replays is in their favor.

Assuming I haven't made any mistakes the above should be conclusive. Not comes the subjective part; I personally think consistency should be rewarded over inconsistent peaking, but that's just my preference.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

Originally Posted by Zaque

Another driver and I went to the question box, where the head ref told us we had won even with the pedestal error, so we went on our merry way. However, as we were setting up for our third match, the head ref came over and told us that we would be replaying the second match, because the other alliance argued that the pedestal error changed how the match was played.

You bet it led to an unhappy team...

Introductions were going on and the FTAs came to our alliance station (blue) and told us to huddle up and explained that the red alliance had protested the previous match due to the blue pedestal not lighting affecting the flow of the match and that after conferring with HQ the match would be replayed. We (blue) had no say, no recourse, and no time to settle down from this news as the match was about to start. Not only did this mentally affect our alliance, but now the red alliance (who won match 1) could play this match very differently because they had "nothing to lose" rather than it being a rubber match.

Should it have been a replay? Yes. It was a clear field fault. Why it took so long to communicate that to our alliance, after the head ref said we're good (and his ruling is supposed to be final), I have no idea, and I'll never understand. I would been fine with replaying the match had we been told up front it was a replay.

If replays were granted consistently, there would be no question of whether to allow the affected team to deny the replay. I really could go either way on this, but I'm not okay with the FTAs calling HQ and overruling the head ref at the urging of the opposing alliance (which is what APPEARED to have happened at Midwest).

[pyroslev]

Interesting Question to say the least. I can think of a match or two where there were replays but declines would have been used. But back to the initial question.

I know in FTC, the replay decision is on the Head Referree but often that call is made off of the FTA/Tech support staff's findings. (Been on that hot plate enough times as FTC FTA)

<G14> Matches are replayed at the discretion of the Head Referee only under the following circumstances:
a. Failure of a Game Element that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
b. * c. omitted as they deal with loss of robot control.

I could see a rule added for declining replay of matches but there are a fair few questions/hypotheticals that would have to be worked out for it to ever end up in the manual.
Who would decline? Both alliances or the losing alliance? Would it be a decline by team? If so, what happens if it is a three for and three against split? What justification would you have to give for declining? So many more that it borders on the nutty.

If it were done in the eliminations, I could see it being a potential decline on the part of the losing alliance and treated as a decline card similar to the time out.

[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.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

There was a situation in Q32 of Kettering where a field fault occurred that hurt the blue alliance while simultaneously one of the three blue robots was disabled (can't remember what specifically the field fault what, but I remember the whole alliance was pretty mad over the situation). Despite these two hindrances, blue still won the match by sheer luck. Head ref declared a field fault and the match was replayed at the end of the day, against all of the blue alliance's requests not to.

In the rematch, red won by a slim margin. Another field fault though, so the match needed to be replayed again the following morning. The third time, red got their stuff together and blew the blue alliance out of the water. Surprisingly enough, no field fault that time.

I think the team affected by the field fault should decide whether to accept or decline the field fault, just like football teams can accept or decline penalty yards. Sometimes lightning strikes only once, and replaying the match you loose all your upset magic.