Chief Delphi - Regional Inconsistencies

From Update #7

Quote:

The following text is added after the first sentence of Rule T11: “Therefore, the team that did not compete in the first match of a series should compete in the second match of the series.”

Based on what I read of that rule, I assumed that BOTH alliances had to substitute the second match of each round of the elimination rounds.

This is how I have heard it was enforced in LA (and some other regionals), but this was not the case in Cleveland, Ypsilanti & Grand Rapids (and most other East of the Rockies Regioinals from what I understand)

The rule as enforced at these East of the Rockies Regionals might be more properly written as:

Quote:

If an alliance can win an elimination round by winning the next match and their is a team on that alliance that has not yet played, then the alliance partner that has not yet played must be one of the two teams to play that round.

This means that an alliance can loose an elimination round without playing every team, but it cannot win one without all members of the alliance playing in at least one match.

To be honest, I like this rule better than the rule as written. It makes for some very tricky questions for the alliance captain to noodle through.

I can live with either ruling. I just hope that FIRST has it be consistant from division to division AND that the ruling is clearly explained before drafting.

Joe J.