It is a long standing flaw with the idea of “match affecting” in qualification matches. The ref has made a judgement that the wrong alliance won the match and that the outcome would be reversed if no one cheated. Then 1 of the winners gets DQed and the other just walks away with a huge smile on his face. The 2 teams are “cheated” out of their win and the ref even agrees.
The community has had a few discussions on this and suggestions have been
entire alliance takes the loss because they would have lost without cheating. 2 wins, 1 loss , 1 DQ
everyone but the DQed team wins because the match is forfeit. 3 wins, 0 loss, 1 DQ
the current system being off course 1 win,2 loss, 1 DQ
The argument is that giving a few extra wins will affect the final rankings less than giving a few extra losses.
I agree with what you’re saying, but I also think it’s possible to violate the rules without actively cheating. If you accidentally knock over the opponents stack, rather than maliciously, you’re still at fault, and you still are responsible. And you still can draw the DQ. But you wouldn’t be pursuing a rule-violating strategy to affect the outcome. It’s a small point, and doesn’t change anything else you said. Just that bad actions from bad intentions show poor sportsmanship and violate the ethos of VEX competition, whereas a bad action through inattention doesn’t.
When 8000Z dumped everything over the fence, they fell, pinning one of the opposing robots and limiting the movement of the other as well as trapping objects and touching the opposing field tiles.
This was a qualifier and a DQ was issued for 8000Z, but the match score remained because it was ruled “non-match affecting”, despite the fact that that the violation occurred with 20 seconds left on the clock.
This ruling was to my favor, so I didn’t really complain at the time, but looking back it probably should’ve been replayed.
We’ve talked about it a lot, and I don’t know what I think. But I particularly dislike the idea of adding back the points that were lost to the infraction. That seems like too much to ask of the refs, and I wouldn’t want that responsibility. So for me, that leaves going with some solution that just counts the points on the field. However, I think it is reasonable to separate the idea of “most points” from “winner.”
One thing that’s troubling is the degree to which a single team in 4 team game can affect the rankings. That’s just the nature of the game, but it would be yet another way for a team to promote or hold back a team in qualifying. Every method seems to have that problem. If @tabor is correct, the “three winners” solution gives less power to manipulate rankings to a single member in a 4 team match. That sounds desirable.
Just to clarify, aren’t replays done for when the field connection doesn’t work for an extended period of time during a match?
Also, I agree with @tabor473 , this sounds like a good idea. However it may be hard to implement, I can easily imagine teams arguing stuff like “howcome they get a win too, we clearly had more points?” Also, I don’t know how the TM app works, but it might be hard to input a win for a team that ended a match with less points than the other alliance.
Replays are for serious technical issues, like bad field connections, particularly if they affect the alliances unequally. Replays are not for things that happen in the normal course of play.
Currently, there isn’t a separate concept of “winner” and “high score” in Tournament Manager, though there is a DQ. To implement @tabor473 's suggestion would require a TM change. Overall, that’s a simple technical issue. The much, much bigger issue is RECF’s GDC determining that such a change should be made. Obviously, they don’t want the game to work that way in the current iteration.
I imagine these sorts of competitive issue are some of what they spend their time on when looking at putting out the next set of rules.