Extreme Tie Breaker!

So my team was at the California states at the end of qualifiers the second and third seat had exactly 6-1 24AP 85SP and were exactly tied the judge told our friendly team in 3rd seat asked if how they were going to break the tie. The Ref said that the tie will be broken by the team that had the highest points in a match. So our friends in 3rd asked if they could see what team scored the highest points the ref replied by saying I could show you but I don’t want to, then he kept the scores on the computer that were based on the (time of submission)-Edit-Bug*. Is this the way the ref should have reached and settled the dispute? But due to this it changed the whole outcome of states.Screenshot 2017-03-14 at 1.05.16 PM.png

Tournament Manager correctly calculates tie-breakers, so if that is the qualification ranking order in Tournament Manager, it is the correct order. You can look this up in www.robotevents.com yourself – the rankings and match results are all publicly visible.

EDIT: The tie-breaking rank order in https://www.robotevents.com/robot-competitions/vex-robotics-competition/RE-VRC-16-1887.html may be incorrect. I have never caught TM making this kind of mistake before.

The game manual has a nice flow diagram which shows how rankings should be determined, after SPs comes the following:

Note that Tournament Manager calculates all of this itself, the referee doesn’t actually have any say in the matter.

So now we need to look at the match scores for 627B and 569D.

  • 627B’s highest score was a 44 in Qual 36
  • 569D’s highest score was a 55 in Qual 48

Which means that 569D should be ranked above 627B… So the rankings are wrong? Unless I’ve made a simple mistake (I had someone else check over because this seems strange)…

Either “highest match score” doesn’t actually refer to a single alliance’s score, or I think Tournament Manager has a bug that affected this tournament.

I agree with you that there was a potential problem with the ranking. I think that your contention that it changed the whole outcome might be MUCH harder to prove. I don’t think that it is clear that alliance selection would have been any different.

That’s a shame, I hope they have this fixed for World’s

Well, if match is taken as both alliance’s scores, 627B’s highest match score was 65 in qualifier #26 and 569D’s highest match score was 62 in qualifier #65. A very weird method, but that at least checks out.

The intent of that rule (if I’m correct) was to judge each team based on their scoring capacity. This rule works better in years where the scoring objects aren’t neutral, and your score does not rely on your opponent as much, like NBN and Skyrise

The reason why this would have changed everything is because both 2nd and 3rd seed wanted team 6526d in 10th so the alliance would be quite different. Due to this it could have completely changed all the following teams and would have changed the possible outcome.

Yeah. Both the second and third team wished to be partnered up with us. My team wished to be partnered with 569D. If their rankings were reversed, we would have been partnered with 569D rather than 627B. Whether this would have changed the overall standings in the end, I can’t say one way or another, but it is slightly annoying if this is indeed an error as my team believes we could have gone further with 569D.

After playing around with different scenarios on Tournament manager, I have come to the conclusion that the highest match score refers top total match score, not the highest alliance match score. If I am correct, then the rankings at the event were correct. Therefore, no error, just confusion.

the flowchart should be updated to more clearly describe how it works.

I think your misunderstanding.

Nathan had already said

We understand the event was at least as correct as TM and that any fault in rankings is not their fault.

We think maybe tournament manager was made using the incorrect definition of highest match score. It is also possible of course that we are just using our own incorrect definition.

This is why I Q&A’d what the definition of “match score” is in relation to the tie breakers. We’ll see what Karthik says

It should be the highest scoring alliance instead of the highest scoring match because that shows that team is better and deserves the higher spot. If this was not a bug I think this is quite an unfair interpretation of how tie breakers should be conducted.