So i was looking through videos and I found this finals match below.
My autoplay was on, and the next video started. After looking at the robots, I thought that it was the same match, and went to choose a different video. When i exited full screen I saw that the video title was “finals match 2”, which doesn’t make sense due to the BO3 rule. I looked at the comments, and someone said that it was to make the comp “more interesting”. I’m not trying to blame this event partner, I just wanted to know if this is legal. If it is, wouldn’t it be a great “loophole” for BO3.(below is the link to the 2nd video)
As an event partner and as someone who has attended the event partner summit, I do not believe that an event partner has the option to do BO3 at their discretion. RECF has been quite adamant about it. I don’t think there is a loophole. I think an event partner disregarded the rules.
if an event partner chooses not to use best of one than that tournament does not qualify for states or any other regional tournament. That event is just a scrimmage.
Of course if they told the teams of the tournament that they got State spots, they are not going to punish those teams for the mistake of someone else.
That’s disappointing that an EP would decide to change the rules like that. It makes it harder for all the EPs that work hard at following the RECF guidelines to the letter. There was a question asked and answered in the EP Q&A (only visible to EPs) about choosing to do BO3, and it was said that they could not. I imagine by now it is on the RECFs radar from this post, but if not, something to investigate @Jim Crane
I would be surprised if the teams had their qualification stripped from them - it wasn’t their fault. I do hope that there are some conversations and RSMs re-iterate to their EPs that this is not supposed to happen.
This still brings us back to the decision New Zealand made to ban V5 in their competition, even though the rules say regions can not make that decision.
I noticed at the end of the video(around 2:09) there was a entanglement. The ref, may have, even though not seeming match affecting, decided to replay the match because of that.
It also seems that this is the only time more than one match was run.
I’m not sure if this was because of a replay, or a protest to best of one, but I don’t think we should jump to any conclusions, possibly ones that could ruin the EP’s reputation.
Good reminder not to jump to conclusions - always a wise course of action.
The fact that there is a F-1 and an F-2 posted makes it seem like it was not a disqualification or a replay, though. I wasn’t sure where you could even go to change the event, but I just started a test tournament in TM and found in the options that you can select Best of 1 or Best of 3 for each elimination round from Round of 128 to Finals.
Maybe it was an honest mistake and the EP didn’t know it wasn’t OK. I certainly have run afoul of some rules in the past due to my misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
As the event partner at the event in question, and a relatively inexperienced one at that, I can say that I did not think I was circumventing the rules. I thought this was at the discretion of the EP and, it had been my recollection from the previous year that this was allowed. I have not had the good fortune to attend any of the EP Summits and I clearly missed this detail. My hope is to learn from this and move forward to be a better EP, so that I can better serve my students and other students in our region.
There would be no reason to take away the state qualification from the alliance that won since they won each match.
If you are interested in the other challenges of that day, I would be glad to share them. We were scheduled to borrow a trailer of field equipment on the Friday prior, but due to the fires in Malibu we were not able to get them. Scrambling to get materials to run the event, we were supported by another local team and were able to get one good field and one practice field. We were able to run most of the matches we originally intended and were done in a reasonable amount of time. I was really proud of the volunteers that helped us that day, and the fact that teams left the event happy with how the event was run.
As far as I am concerned (not that I feel you should overvalue my opinion), it was an innocent oversite. As you noted, it made no substantive difference in the results. You definitely had more than your share of challenges - kudos for pulling off a successful event.
As an EP myself, I know many of the challenges and difficulties that go into hosting a successful event, and I also know one or two bad things can ruin an otherwise great experience. VEX needs EPs to have positive experiences as much as teams - there would be no VRC/VIQC without EPs to host events.
@jjacobson thanks for responding. I didn’t mean to put you in any jeopardy, I just wanted to know if the BO3 rule was lifted. It was an honest mistake, and not comp affecting, so it should be fine:)
33 teams and you only got three state spots? I had less than that and I got 5. I know California is already huge and you have 3 state tournaments but time to get another one if you are that skimpy on spots!
I appreciate this response as well. I am now in the habit of sending an email the day after a competition to all the coaches about my reflections on how I could have done it better. I think they like getting it. It’s more a checklist for me to look back on as well once I’m weeks away and I forget everything I screwed up.
