It pains me to say this, but there is some legitimacy to bo1. It saves time, it’s better for teams with only 1 v5 battery, and the best team still most likely will win. And last year, stacks could tip over and ruin a good team’s match, but this year, points are scored little by little and can’t be taken away all at once. At least at local events with less on the line, I admit there is a reasonable argument for bo1. (Though of course I still strongly prefer bo3, but we don’t need to get into that )
But one of the things that makes bo1 extremely scary is the possibility of a DQ. Many referees don’t totally understand the rule book, and they have also been known to abuse their discretion and make unreasonable calls. I don’t mean to target specific referees, but here are some examples of disqualifications that seemed totally unfair and changed the outcome of various tournaments.
It seems like the possibility of an unfair DQ, however remote it is, makes bo1 a much more scary and less popular elimination format. After worlds, team XD said the possibility of a DQ was the biggest flaw with bo1.
So here’s what I’d propose. In all elimination matches, all DQs result in replays, not instant losses. If the replay ends in another DQ or a tie, the team who was not disqualified in the first match wins the series, otherwise the winner of the next match advances and the other team is eliminated. I’ve never seen a tournament with more than 2 DQs in elimination matches, so this would add between 0 and 4 minutes to a competition. I think we can all agree 4 minutes is a minimal price to pay for a fairer and calmer competition. This would take pressure off the referees and off the competitors, make the competition less dependent on the referee’s discretion, and really have no significant downside.
Do you really see teams doing that? And remember, if a team got DQed twice in a row, they would still lose the series. That seems like a really unlikely scenario to me, at least from the culture at competitions I’ve seen in California. (Maybe it’s different in AZ?)
I’m not too sure about this system. There could potentially be scenarios where you would want to do a dqable offense to win a game and thus get a rematch. I can’t really think of any big ones (maybe intentionally hitting flags with your lift?) but it still would promote some sort of sketchy strategy into the mix.
This would only benefit the alliance getting DQ’d. Universally replaying every match that would have resulted in a DQ even in clear cut scenarios would incentivize breaking the rules. If you were losing a match big time with no hope of recovering, the best strategic option would be to commit a violation of the rules that results in a DQ. This would allow you to regroup for the replay and potentially win a match should have been disqualified from previously.
While I do believe refs should be more lenient with replays with best of one in place, it should only be for unclear scenarios where the call could go either way (e.g. Fuzzy Wuzzy at worlds).
What about a rule where if all 4 teams in a match requested a replay, the referees would be obligated to grant it? Most of the teams that I have played with would be more than willing to agree to a replay if something like this happened, even if it is not to their benefit.
First, thank you for trying to work with BO1 now. We can’t get Vex to change that so we might as well work with what we have. Second, we could possibly delve into other parts of the rules and consider whether the DQ was “match affecting”. This would help prevent teams from simply getting DQed because they are losing or one of their robots broke. However, it would still allow your solution to avoid a huge and controversial call like the examples you gave.
This is a potential limitation of my idea, I guess there would need to be some referee discretion either way. Maybe for an unintentional violation (even if match affecting) the match would be replayed, but for an intentional violation, the DQ would still result in a loss for the disqualified team?
I think the issue often arises from things other than a disagreement over the facts of what actually happened. For example, in the first match in the OP, blue was disqualified because the referees thought that their expansion past 18" was more egregious than red’s expansion. (Both were illegal, neither were match affecting by any means.) In the second match, the referee saw what happened perfectly, but decided to DQ 1008M anyways because they had been warned for “almost” expanding past 18 inches previously. In the third match, the referee believed that parking in corner was cone hoarding, when in fact this was not consistent with the written rules. In all three instances, a replay would not have solved the issue. There would need to be some way to appeal a call on the spot such as the call-in replay system in major league baseball, which is obviously costly and time consuming.
I think a more objective replay system is definitely a better alternative to looking at match footage, the question is just when a replay is appropriate.
That actually adds more jobs for the refs. I like the safety net, but the line between intentional and unintentional can be really hard to see as a ref. I like where this is going, though.
This has been said before, but why can’t we just compromise and have a BO2?
Disqualifications in practice are almost always given for match affecting offenses. If you hear of a team getting DQ’s during a match that is usually not correct.
If the blue alliance drives out of the expansion zone and both violate the expansion rule by lifting their lifts to high and setting their controller down, they get a warning, not a DQ. You could just say for match effecting DQ’s you rerun the match…
In the first example in the OP, the blue alliance is two of my teams and the video was taken at the event that I am the EP for. I can’t speak for the circumstances of the other examples, but for the first one I certainly can.
In this case a rematch would have saved a whole lot of heartache AND time. In our case, the ref team were not vigilantes, taking the rules into their own hands. They took the call VERY seriously. They left the room for about 20 min to deliberate. They took disqualifying the blue alliance seriously, and understood the implications. It broke their hearts to do as much as it broke my teams’ hearts to be disqualified for a design flaw that they hadn’t even previously noticed. I believe that the rules used to disqualify the alliance are ambiguous and need clarification, which is why I asked about them in the official Q&A. However, on that day the current rules are all the refs had to work with. All this said, if a rematch had been allowed, there would have been no need for such a difficult, heartbreaking call. Both alliances were more than 18" outside the expansion zone. Re-run the match. I can guarantee neither alliance would’ve minded, and the 5 min it would take to re-run the match would’ve been a whole lot shorter than the 20 min deliberation.
Well, platform parking WAS match affecting. If it counted, blue alliance won. If not, red alliance won. It was a close match. Did the expansion violation in any way affect the blue alliance’s ability to park? Absolutely not. So I guess it depends on how you define “match affecting”.
The reasoning for the call was that at the end of the match, both the blue and red alliance robots on the platform were out of size. The red one by quite a lot because it was tipped on its back. The blue one by a tiny bit because the claw hung slightly below the plane of the platform. The refs felt that as both alliances violated the rule, it cancelled out, however the reason the red team violated the rule was because they tipped, and the refs felt that the reason for the tipping was because of the blue alliance robot on the center platform, which meant that the blue alliance forced the red alliance to violate a rule. Forcing another robot to violate a rule was the cause for the DQ.