I don’t really have an opinion about that one. I believe for this year we have to allow one robot handler for competing “human” team, since technically you should not touch robots that don’t belong to you. However, in the future this should be resolved if we remove the robot handlers anyway from the field.
Good point. In my view the mean should be calculated, not the geometric average (otherwise it would be beneficial for teams to play as good as possible)
The geometric average was intended to resolve situations where players are tied in terms of accumulated points. In such situations the arithmetic mean will by definition also be tied, so that does not help in determining a ranking. Apart from the problem with negative numbers, which is still an open question, the geometric mean rewards the most ‘consistent’ player, in the sense of having the least variation in the scores in each game. Not sure if this was the intent, but that’s indirectly what would happen.
How about in the case of a tie, the player’s rankings are determined by the smallest standard deviation? This would also prefer “most consistent” players. If the three best drop-in players cannot be identified with that scheme then an additional game would be played, as is already in the rules in case the geometric average method fails.