this had nothing to do with davids bot, it was simply unlucky and unexpected. there was nothing they could do to prevent it. bo3 allows them to play again and have this not happen.
No clue what you are getting at here or earlier with mid-terms.
Mars probe has one change to win at landing on surface… no do overs there.
Bo1 and Bo3 are arbitrary decisions made by GDC for tournament format. It may change, in coming years, but this year it is Bo1 until final round, and thus a design criteria - your robot must perform well under Bo1 - you lose, you lose. No do overs because your robot failed to move/operate - there is one “do over” if field control failed - then match may be replayed.
As for mid-terms, I am pretty sure they are not played Bo3 either.
VRC Bo1 pushes teams to have the most robust robots, game strategy, and operational excellence. To develop the core skills needed, teams need to test, practice, and iterate designs all season long.
I feel bad for the robot that failed in the video. It happens, move on. It certainly does not warrant the statement “Bo1 is absolute trash.”
even doing this you can still lose to things out of your control. bo1 is not good for a very competitive setting such as showcase events. bo3 will usually allow teams who got unlucky to still have a chance. I can tell you right now davids bot is extremely robust and i’m sure he tested it. this was one in a million situation.
Without any more information about what failed (it was a fail of some subsystem of the robot), I am pretty sure it is not a one in a million situation.
Look, you guys are not really doing a good job of debating if Bo1 vs Bo3 or even Bo7 is best. What are the new factors that were not known in the decision to go Bo1 that need to be considered?
I know one thing people are not asking for - bringing back 3 team alliances 
Oh boy! another controversial VF opinion! 
Still don’t understand why Worlds Qualifying VEXU tournaments are Bo1 even when they barely have enough teams to run semi-finals. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, but I have a hard time justifying it.
As stated earlier in the thread, I think should be some sort of do over if a robot white screens/ disconnects and the issue is related to vex’s software.
that’s already a rule
Where? I have had sister teams white screen in a match and been kicked out of eliminations when they loose. Defidently no redoes.
G20 states-
Match Replays are allowed, but rare. Match Replays, i.e. playing a match over again from its
start, are at the discretion of the Event Partner and Head Referee, and will only be issued in the most
extreme circumstances listed but not limited to the following:
a. Field Fault issues that have directly affected Match play.
i. Game Elements not in the correct positions
ii. Tape lines lifting
iii. Field Elements detaching or moving beyond normal tolerances that is not a result of team play
violations.
iv. Autonomous Period or Driver Controlled Period ending early
v. Field Control disconnecting and disabling Robots. Not to be confused with a Robot that trips its
own PTC and has to reboot to reconnect the robot to controller, or teams with controllers that
have bent pins that affect only their alliance Field Control tower.
b. Game Rule issues that affect the outcome of a match.
i. Referee disables a robot for a misinterpretation of a rule violation.
ii. Referee starts the Driver Controlled Period without determining the outcome of the Autonomous
winner.
iii. The field is reset before a score is determined.
While this does not specify white screens it does give a clause at the beginning you could make a case on. You could also claim that “Field Control disconnecting and disabling Robots.” could also mean white screens. This will mostly be dependant on the ref. The reason they don’t do replays for whitescreens is because brain position is a major factor in white screens. Example- We had one rebuild that got constant white screens and was almost encased in metal while our current robot has had no white screens and brain placement is open. Maybe someone who knows more about electronics knows why this is the case.
The only way I was ever able to reproduce a white screen was with intermittent power loss. The team I mentor (well, before covid) had two or three white screens in one competition, we swapped the battery cable and that seemed to solve the issue.
What I’ve heard is that it can be caused pretty consistently by overdrawing. ie having lots of motors plugged in and rapidly toggling between forwards and backwards at max voltage.
This seems to be a major cause of them. We had an older battery cable, and white screened 3 times in qualifications. Another team said that they had had that same problem, and that older battery cables could like disconnect slightly when it was bumped, and loaned us a new one. The problem, thankfully, seemed to be solved for the finals.
Wasn’t this fixed on the Cortex units with a 9V backup battery? Back to battery cable connector issues again…
I am not sure how serious are/were the teams regarding the 9V battery.
Even for my own teams, I have seen some of them treating the 9V battery as a inspection checklist thats all, meaning some of them will be scrambling digging out an old and used 9V battery and just plug it into the cortex.
But of course I think most of us should have already moved away from cortex by now.
You never heard about the ancient Kingdom of Calculatia, where they sacrificed kids who failed their calculus exam, because, well, it only exists in the imagination of those preparing for the midterms and finals…
Everybody understands that it makes no sense to deny people second chances in such a cruel way.
No, it is not arbitrary. It is a calculated decision because
What I am saying is that, when it is easy to recognize that something is beyond team’s control, then it is a no brainer to give up some precious EP time to give them a chance:
But it is not a clear cut to recognize that for most teams understanding how to avoid whitescreen is out of their control just as much as the traffic accident.
I feel like some adults think that, by the magic of desire to win, every good team will get to understand all intricacies of ESD. And, if students didn’t bother to research whitescreen causes, then they get what they deserve.
But from students’ point of view it is like we worked hard all season long, we tried to move v5 brain everywhich way on the robot, we have our lucky rabbit foot hidden between license plates, and we still got killed by the whitescreen in SF.
Is this the wrath of gods for cheating on Honors History test and not learning about Zeus the master of thunderbolts and ESD?
Then I think they missed the point of the 9V backup battery. I did hear of teams claiming the backup battery caused them problems but from a design perspective it’s purpose was clearly to keep the processor and VEXnet running during a momentary battery disconnection. Always used them with our teams and never experienced a failure. It was an inspection check for good reason.
What I was pointing out is we’re apparently now seeing momentary battery disconnections on V5 and there’s no backup battery like the Cortex units had.
I’m not sure this is a fair, or accurate, assessment. I’ll try to be more polite than some others may have been, but to say that it’s a “do over” isn’t even true. Bo3 has no “do overs.” What it does is more accurately reflect the highest performing team. Anyone can get lucky once. Run 2 clawbots vs 2 max skills bots 1000 times and I’m sure the clawbots win at least once. Winning 2 out of 3 in a row, I highly doubt it. Just like running more qual matches, it reflects the most effective robots in the competition. By your logic, run 1 qual match per team. “no do overs, so better be good enough to win your one match.” That would be silly. That’s why in WQ tournaments, 8+ qual matches frequently occur.
Then, forgetting the fact that bo3 isn’t even a “do over,” to say that do overs don’t often happen in life isn’t fair either. VRC is a competition (hence the name). In sports competitions, there are often series much greater. MLB world series is bo7, same with NHL stanley cup and NBA finals. Now you could say, “what about American football, you fool, don’t you know that’s bo1?” Yes, I do enjoy watching football. The difference is that in a physically grueling such as football, only so many games can be played by human players. Injuries are frequent. Players get tired and hurt (especially at the professional level). If there was bo7 for football playoffs, the season would be double in length (likely more), and I’d be shocked if any player actually made it to the end of the finals. Whereas in a 2 minute robotics match, I think it’s fair to say the physical endurance is far different, and that bo3 would not place the same strain on competitors. Even if you completely ignore this logic (which would be a poor choice), that is still only 1 instance of bo1 in other competition, so the claim “often doesn’t happen” is simply inaccurate.
Regarding industry, there are do overs literally all the time. Recalled products, exploding samsungs, crashed test runs; the list goes on. Granted, context varies, but no one is expected to be perfect all the time, even multi billion dollar corporations. To expect that same level of perfection that isn’t even achieved at the professional level from teenagers is simply ridiculous.
One question I have is, did you support bo1 during the days in which bo3 was occuring? Were you always against bo3, or are you now just advocating against it because that’s the policy VEX/RECF is carrying out? If so, I think that sets a poor example. Simply agreeing with those above you is not how progress and innovation is made. VEX and RECF know a lot. Far more than me, or any individual competitor. But, they are not perfect. Maybe they made a mistake here. I don’t know if they did, but simply agreeing with them does not allow us to effectively evaluate their solution and determine if it’s time for a redesign. Isn’t that the key to engineering? Following the design process?
Personally, I don’t hate bo1 as much as many others. I’d prefer bo3 for sure, but bo1 isn’t something that keeps me up at night. I still think it’s fair to consider everyone’s perspectives though. Free thinking is the key to success. Suppressing free thought, or shooting it down, is what halts progress and innovation.
I would like to express a stronger +1 sentiment to this post than the 
button allows.