@AlexM_4478X Some parts of this post are somewhat misinformed, others I would like to make personal comments on:
1. There was ruled to be no violation in this match. I was waiting for a decision to be made before my team could play their match, so I saw the whole process. It was initially ruled a DQ, then eventually reversed so that specifically is not a problem that can be solved by your suggestion.
Thank you for pointing this out. It turns out the referees probably made the *incorrect* decision as per the way the rules are written which ends up just being an argument for bo3. The rule in question, G12, states “If the tipping, Entanglement, or damage is ruled to be intentional or egregious, the offending Team may be disqualified from that Match,” and egregious is defined as match affecting. Since the phrase “or” is used, tipping that changes the winner and loser of the match, regardless of intent, may result in a DQ. There was definitely tipping, and the tipping definitely changed the outcome of the match, thus the blue alliance in this match should have been disqualified regardless of intent.
@AlexM_4478X 2. This gives a strong level of opinion that should not be present in refereeing. Where is the cut off in how close the call should have been?
+1! And this is an issue bo1 has and bo3 doesn’t, so this really should be another argument for bo3.
@AlexM_4478X 3. V5 just made its debut, as everyone complains about the vulnerability of the old system. Rather smart (albeit aggressive) marketing for the new system, yes?
I didn’t notice that, but that’s super true! Although apparently the old system has way over 99.5% consistency so...
@AlexM_4478X I agree VAR could be useful, however, students should not be involved in major ways with this. I am sure some students would likely abuse the right to call a VAR review if given in an unlimited sense.
Very true! But I don’t know of any ways students could abuse bo3, whatever that means. This again is an argument for bo3.
@AlexM_4478X I agree with the idea of "bell curve scoring" but that also goes with DRow's explanation of the BO1 change, which focused on consistency. Consistency is not just "make sure your robot always works" but from a numerical standpoint, it becomes a robot's ability to make its own bell curve as thin as possible so that most possibilites end in its middle/higher score range.
This sounds amazing on paper until you look at some data. Sadly, it appears vex hasn’t bothered to do so at any point, so I’ll do it now. Looking at the RR teams’ highest scores, lowest scores, and ranges in eliminations - and putting aside all matches teams played against 62A since they had a defensive robot:
5225A and 8825S: 150, 95, 55
929U and 62A: 124, 54, 70
81Y and 48180S: 143, 93, 50
1010X and 6627A: 146, 85, 61
666X and 7884D: 133, 72, 61
169E and 8059X: 130, 45, 85
All 12 teams in round robin had a range of above 50 points. 50 points is a difference of autonomous, all 4 highest stack bonuses, and 10 cones. The largest range, 85, is a difference of autonomous, all 3 highest stack bonuses, all 4 mobile goals, and 5 cones. Obviously even the teams that do well in a bo1 format have an extremely wide bell curve, thus the idea that bo1 reinforces consistency is simply fictitious.
@AlexM_4478X Not necesarily. Given a match with two top tier consistent robots, it will only be beaten by two robots that at least approach that level. For example, in the video provided above, 8675A nearly beat 2 robots on its own, because those robots approached their level. Keep in mind that 2S and 1010N were actually pretty good robots, so the fact that one robot at a higher level was nearly able to beat these two together proves my point.
Respectfully, a lot of things almost happened. Germany almost won WWII. What *actually* happened is that the stronger alliance fell to the weaker alliance because of bo1.
Bring bo3 back.