World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc. World Beyblade Organization Discuss worldbeyblade.org

[RULES] Wins vs. Ties in Spin Steal Battles

Poll: How much longer does a given Bey have to spin in order to win if both Beyblades stop at almost the same time?

The winning Beyblade must have completed a minimum number or fraction of rotations, else it is a tie
38.10%
16
The winning Beyblade is the one who stops last; if both Beyblades stop at the EXACT same time it's a tie
61.90%
26
Total: 100% 42 vote(s)
  • You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
  • * You voted for this item.
  • Show Results
Oct. 18, 2013  10:07 PM
 
This is a question that has come up again, and (surprisingly) the offical rules don't cover this (I thought they did, but I just checked and couldn't find it). Where should the line be drawn between ties and wins/losses in spin-steal battles in which both Beyblades stop at almost the same time?

There are a few options:
  1. In order to win and not tie, a given Beyblade must complete at least a full rotation (or some minimum fraction of rotations) after the opposing Beyblade stops.
  2. In order to win and not tie, a given Beyblade just has the be the last one to stop, without needing to complete a minimum rotation amount. It is only a tie if both Beyblades stop at the exact same time.
Option 1 results in much clearer victories such that judge bias/conflict is avoided (conflict like "No way, mine totally nudged there at the end, I should have won!", which is an big headache waiting to happen), but would result in more ties during tournaments. This is what I thought was the standard (and is how I've always tested parts), but apparently judges have been doing the second option according to some posters in Beyblade Customs.

Option 2 results in fewer ties during tournaments, but opens a huge can of worms when it comes to trying to define when two Beyblades stop at the same time vs. one player winning. That is to say, if this was the rule, then when two Beyblades stop at almost the exact same time, I could easily see someone getting butthurt because a judge called the match a tie when they were sure their Beyblade spun a fraction of a second longer, or even worse, if a judge calls a match one way and the losing player swears they saw their Beyblade spin last. The first option makes this less of a worry, as a given blader is only given a win if they clearly were spinning last.

If it isn't obvious, I'm very much a proponent of Option 1; what do you all say regarding this issue?
Oct. 18, 2013  10:39 PM
 
Eh, option one is what is written in the Rulebooks right now ...
http://worldbeyblade.org/universalrules.pdf
http://worldbeyblade.org/standardrules.pdf

So, obviously this is what we prefer.

Also, I quite liked Arupaeo's complementary proposition that if the judge hesitated at all and could not declare a clear winner, it was to be considered a tie. Generally that means that not a full revolution was accomplished anyway.
Oct. 18, 2013  10:57 PM
 
I've always thought that if the opposing Beyblade is visibly rotating longer than the opponent, then it should be declared the winner. Asking for a full revolution to win in battles where spin stealing is a factor is too much; they are just that close. There's always a potential for someone to be unhappy with a call that a judge makes, but the judge will always have a better look at the action than the players (preferably a view which is directly overhead, or close to it), and their calls are final. Players need to accept that, especially when they realize that they are in a battle which is as close as spin stealing battles tend to be.
Oct. 19, 2013  4:33 AM
 
In North Carolina I always say if its still spinning. Even if its just a slight bit more. Asking for a full rotation is a bit much to ask when you have a meta full of Dragooon F230 CF and Dragooon SA165 EWD like we do. But Im in favor of who is visibly spinning longer. That's how Ive always done it.
Oct. 19, 2013  3:23 PM
 
(Oct. 18, 2013  10:57 PM)Kei Wrote: I've always thought that if the opposing Beyblade is visibly rotating longer than the opponent, then it should be declared the winner. Asking for a full revolution to win in battles where spin stealing is a factor is too much; they are just that close. There's always a potential for someone to be unhappy with a call that a judge makes, but the judge will always have a better look at the action than the players (preferably a view which is directly overhead, or close to it), and their calls are final. Players need to accept that, especially when they realize that they are in a battle which is as close as spin stealing battles tend to be.


THIS THIS THIS THIS, especially from a plastics (and IIRC HMS as well) perspective, very few spin steal battles will ever have that big a margin - perhaps with tuned/season bearings that may have been the case, but a full rotation just won't work there - you'll be there for hours.
Yes, "last spinning" is hard to define in a way it couldn't be abused, but generally judges should be chosen for impartiality and good judgement anyway (i.e. these should be prerequisites). To expand upon Kei's last point, if you're selecting a combo where a match like this is possible, you should be aware of this anyway - that should play a part in your choice of combination in the first place.

I would agree on judge hesitation being an acceptable way to determine a tie, though I worry about people who are just generally a little slow to react (eg me when I haven't had much sleep) in general. In the end it'd still come down to a judge deciding if it was clear or not and as a result it comes down to judge discretion - in the end, judges should know when a match is too close for them to reliably call - I've found players are generally understanding of this at least where I live.

Also, if a judge is repeatedly making bad/unfair calls, then players as well as other attendees should know to raise that with the committee in private anyway, so the risk is pretty limited at best. Must say I wish we could just have videos of all matches recorded though, haha.


EDIT which is probably more important than the above by many magnitudes: Also, I think people have missed that under the current rule, the requirement of a full rotation applies to BOTH beyblades in a battle - not just the second one to stop.
This might be what Ingulit was getting at, and means the point at which a beyblade needs to be able to complete a full 360 degree rotation to win by outspin is immediately after the point its opponent has begun its final rotation (i.e. 359.9999999999999... degrees remaining). This makes for an even tougher judgement call than "last to stop".

And it gets even better - here's my favourite consequence of the current rule: I'm pretty sure that because we're basing it on rotations and not time, a theoretical situation arises where a beyblade with a high RPM but very high rate of loss of RPM (eg a beyblade that at low RPM suddenly switches to a higher-friction tip or just generally loses stability quickly and then scrapes itself to death) is pitted against an opponent with excellent ability to continue spinning at very low RPMs, that the latter could enter its final 359.999999999... degrees of rotation before the high-RPM beyblade enters its last 360, and therefore lose the match, but the Low RPM beyblade's 359.999999999... degrees take long enough that the high RPM bey actually stops spinning first by conventional definition. In essence, the last beyblade spinning would not have been the last to have stopped by the current definition of the rulebook, and therefore it would lose by outspin despite rotating longer than its opponent.
While this is theoretical, I think we can all agree that a ruleset under which it could happen is a ruleset in need of correction.

There are further complications for the current rule with regards to spin stealing and how it changes whether the beyblade does/doesn't have the energy to complete a full rotation, but I'll leave those for now as I think I've already made my point: the current rule is deeply flawed in what it sets out to do, and currently actually more closely resembles Ingulit's second option, while also having some impressive flaws in it.

On the other hand, if you consider the first beyblade stopped when it actually stops, not 359.999999999999999999... degrees of rotation before (which would require the text of the rule be altered as per the above explanation), that judgement for the first top is basically the same judgement you're trying to eliminate on the second top - and if you judge it just a fraction wrong you could end up with the opponent only being able to rotate 359.999999999 degrees after your call of the first beyblade stopping, despite having actually rotated at least 360 since the opponent actually stopped.
It's not quite as exploitable, but this is still a pretty odd way to do things and creates the issues Kei, Dark Mousy, and myself have addressed with regards to many spin steal match ups being quite interminable - it seems like a big pain for very limited reward.

In the end, it is a lot simpler to just go with common sense and assume/require that our judges are competent enough to know when (and when not) to say a match was too close to call and that players need to respect their decision - and a lot more practical for at least plastics, too.

tl;dr the current rule doesn't actually stand up in the face of EXTREME NITPICKING and making it do so seems to me to be largely self-defeating as well as being very problematic for plastics/hms (and apparently MFB too).


Also, Ingulit, I'd like to point out that the way the poll is worded makes the second option sound like a beyblade could have stopped, then be moved by its opponent's last bit of motion and be considered the victor, along with sounding much, much less professional than the first option. While I doubt it was intentional, I would strongly object to the validity of any results taken from it. Even if it weren't, I'd object on the grounds that the vast majority of the people voting won't actually understand how disastrous this rule is for Plastics and HMS (and many probably won't even understand the relevance to MFB, honestly).
Oct. 19, 2013  9:07 PM
 
tbh that was always how I looked at it during NY battles. At my tournament back in December, we had a spin-stealer finals match that lasted for a good 25 minutes while it was snowing outside because the two were so close. HMS has similar issues, like during the finals of the NY Remembrance Tournament back in July, but less so than plastics from what I remember seeing because HMS are generally more aggressive.

Expecting a full rotation from such battles is too much to ask.
Oct. 20, 2013  1:28 AM
 
If we go with "leave it up to the judge," what are we supposed to do when it comes to test results? If there isn't a standard, it's hard to evaluate any spin-steal results since one person might call something a win that someone else would call a tie.
Oct. 20, 2013  5:40 AM
 
"If a battle is won by less than a full rotation, make note of this in your detailed results", or something along those lines, should do the trick.
Oct. 20, 2013  4:32 PM
 
(Oct. 20, 2013  5:40 AM)th!nk Wrote: "If a battle is won by less than a full rotation, make note of this in your detailed results", or something along those lines, should do the trick.

Ehhhhh... I don't like the idea of test results being that much up to the discretion of the tester since it's hard to translate those results to a tournament setting where a judge might be more strict. I really think we need at least some kind of standard, full rotation or not.
Oct. 22, 2013  6:54 AM
 
Forget the full rotation. The one that stops first, loses. It's simple, no?
Nov. 17, 2013  2:35 PM
 
Yes. Whoever stops first loses. I completely agree.