Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

Okay,

I'm flipping between the webcast at VCU and the Peachtree regionals.

Are there TWO different sets of rules being used in picking?

At the VCU Regional, the annoucer said ANY team that declines cannot participate in the elimination rounds. This includes a top 8 seed picking another top 8 seed. If the chosen top 8 seed declines, then they cannot participate in the elimination rounds!!! Apparently this is new for 2005.

At the Peachtree however, 1180 had two of their picks decline, both of which were other top 8 seeds. These teams, even though they declined, were allowed to continue, and even make their own picks!!!

What's the deal?

-SlimBoJones...

Peachtree Alliance Selections?
 

As I watch the Peachtree alliance selections, I saw a top 8 ranked team decline one invitation, then accept another invitation. I thought that once a top 8 team was selected and declined the invitation, that it was so that they could be their own. I know in past years, they have not been allowed to do this, I looked through the rules and couldn't find anything if they decline. Does anyone know if this is legal this year?

Re: Peachtree Alliance Selections?
 

8.4.1
...
The invited Team Representative will step forward and either accept or decline the invitation. If the team accepts, it is moved into that Alliance. If the team declines, it is not eligible to be picked again and the Alliance Captain extends another invitation to a different team.
...

They seem to have done it wrong :O

Also, the top 8 remaining seeds are supposed to be automatically paired up as standbys in order, not picked?

Re: Peachtree Alliance Selections?
 

It is not supposed to happen. Check the first paragraph of section 8.4.1.

Of course, fixing that problem will mean all new alliances.

Re: Peachtree Alliance Selections?
 

thats exactly what i wanted to know!!! i literally just posted a thread on this too... i'm glad i'm not the only person who is confused by this. the way i read the rules, once you decline, you decline forever and you dont have the chance to be chosen by another alliance. but i could be wrong. i'm going to find the ruling on this and see if maybe its different this year--but i dont recall that being different. :ahh:

Re: Peachtree Alliance Selections?
 

Problems with Alliance selections at VCU too..

Which one is right?

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...5&postcount=40

From what I understand from a problem we had at UTC last year, and a reading of the rules from this year, a top 8 team can decline, but not be chosen to join anyone else in the top 8 seeding teams. BUT since they are a top 8 team, so.. they can still choose their own two people for their alliance.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

They blew it at both events. Different ways, too!

At VCU, teams were required to accept, even if top-8: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...5&postcount=40

At Peachtree, apparently a team declined, then accepted, which is not allowed, even in the top 8 (they must pick for themselves, if they decline once): http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=35803

Re: Peachtree Alliance Selections?
 

at least they managed to fix the standby team picking.

Re: Peachtree Alliance Selections?
 

The rules seem to say that if a top 8 team declines an invitation,they (like any other team) cannot be picked again, but can remain in their alliance captain spot. If the intent was different, the rules would have said "must withdraw from the competition" or the like.

Re: Peachtree Alliance Selections?
 

They never say anything about the top 8 seeded teams being exempt from the rules. if they've declined once, they are not eligible to be chosen again.

Peachtree got it wrong... someone should have caught that. its gonna be tough to fix this now. :-/ i'm sorry all of you at this regional.. this really changes things. good luck.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

this ruling is not new... for as long as i remember, it has always been like that, and the second we saw what happened at the peachtree regional, all of the veterans on mentors on the team who are present immidiately asked "Is that legal?" The VCU regional has got it partially right--that rule has always been there, but teams are not required to accept. if they do not accept, they just dont move on in the tournament. But now Peachtree is in a bind. :( this is bad.

Re: Peachtree Alliance Selections?
 

Well, there're robots on the field...and judges in a unending huddle, no doubt discussing this.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

that also is untrue. if a top seeded team declines an alliance, they can still choose their own alliance. top 8 teams will always compete.

Re: Peachtree Alliance Selections?
 

Wow! I see two solutions.

1) All of the coaches in the alliances agree to the mistake.

2) Don't talk too much about it and redo the alliance selections.

What do you think,
Lucien

Re: Peachtree Alliance Selections?
 

just redo selections.

it doesnt matter if they agree on the mistake or admit it or anything; it violates the rules and this needs to be fixed. the sooner the better too.

Re: Peachtree Alliance Selections?
 

The manual seems to say that redoing the alliance selections are the only way to follow the letter of the law, but I think that both solutions are viable. The general trend in FIRST is to accept screwups such as these, or a robot that misses getting to the field for a finals match by ten seconds, and et cetera.

Of course, I'm not there--that's a team decision.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

I merged another thread that was discussing this issue into this one for ease of reading and to reduce clutter.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

Well.. (unless I missed something) Apparently they decided to keep the selections as picked in Peachtree.

I just hope this is not the new standard, and that teams watching the webcast understand they are doing it wrong, and do not get confused when they play their first regional.

<slightly off topic>
There was a delay that they blamed on "computer problems" and Sir Charles pumped up the crowd during that time, and they threw a flag at someone who wasn't participating in the wave in the stands. Good stuff.
</slightly off topic>

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

:( i'm not happy with this. i can understand that time was running short, and people just wanted to see a game, but this violates the rules.... and just think about how different the outcome of this Regional could have been had someone caught this mistake earlier. Next weeks regionals should make this rule perfectly clear--this shouldnt happen again. in reality, it should never have happened in the first place.

VCU Update
 

What has happened has happened. Humans were involved, mistakes made. Clarification will come after Monday.

At VCU, the question was asked about a seeded team declining a pick and still being allowed to pick. The rules do not mention this specifically, they only say that a team may not be picked if they decline to be picked. Some discussion was had, with the intent that a decline means no participation. This was decided before selections were made and captains were told this. This was accepted by the teams and we proceeded from there.

What is being described at Peachtree sounds like complete mistake, and is unfortunate.

Wetzel

Re: VCU Update
 

Regarding VCU, the way i have always understood that rule is that a top seeded team could decline being in an alliance with a higher seeded team and still choose their own alliance--they just wouldnt be able to be chosen by another team for an alliance that they are not the alliance captain for. the top 8 seeded teams should always participate (unless thier robot breaks or something unfortunate like that). but i guess if everyone at VCU was told this, understood it, and agreed by it, then it should stay that way, even if it was against the rules. although i do see why there was confusion--that segment of the rules will probably have to be clarified after this weekend.

this most certainly was an experience to be learned from. hopefully neither of these scenerios will occur again.

Re: VCU Update
 

Where in the rules does it say that you can decline and still participate? It is not addressed in the rules at all. As I understand it, there will be an update addressing this early next week.

Wetzel

Re: VCU Update
 

The problem is the wording.

While it says that a team that declines can not be chosen again by anyone and is basically out of the competition, it is understood that if team 1 picks team 5 and they decline, then team 5 can not be chosen by anyone else (re: teams 2-4), but that are still eligible to choose their 2 partner teams since they are a top 8 still and have the right to choose teams.

While all teams under 8 are out of being a picked team unless they move up in the rankings due to a 1-8 intra team picking system in the first round selections...

Team 9 denies, but moves into the 8 position, then they now have the right that the original top 8 teams have acquired by being a top 8 team and they can now choose 2 other teams.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

With everything in life, mistakes are made and this is just another instance. It is how we address these mistakes that is important. I think if FIRST consulted the 24 alliances coaches and they agreed to proceed then I don't have a problem with this. On the other hand, if they recognized that this was a problem and made a decision in a "back room" then I also am not happy with this. I bet that it was handled in a very "professional" manner that will make us proud.

This incident exposes a very interesting strategy that if you are a top three seed, you may want to prevent other alliance captains from forming alliances with top 8 teams by selecting those you know will decline your invitation before selecting your desired alliance partner. A little risky but if you are a #1 seed, it makes since to start picking all of the "we don't want to be on your alliance" teams to prevent them from getting picked by another top 8 seed . Picking the #2 seed makes no difference but picking a #7 or #8 seed could make a huge difference.

Well, the teams that were DIRECTLY part of this mistake did not advance. Admittingly & indirectly, all of the teams were involved.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

Oh wow... you've exposed a new layer in strategy with regards to choosing alliances. Sure this doesnt exemplify gracious professionalism, but that isnt going to stop everyone. (thats a shame too).

I'm still not happy with this whole situation, but that doesnt change anything. Natchez, i hope you are right and the situations were handled professionally with the knowledge and consent of all of the teams. There was human error--nothing can be done about it--and we should not place the blame on anyone. We should just realize what occured, wait for an update/ruling from FIRST, drop this entire issue, and just move on in our lives, keeping in mind the rules for next time.

Re: VCU Update
 

That is what I was making sure happened. Typically if a lot of people talk about something, it brings it to the attention of the powers that be a lot quicker. Thanks for pointing this out!

Re: VCU Update
 

When the rule discussed in this thread first went into effect a few years ago, it was described in detail at the kickoff. It was made clear that if you declined, you could not accept another invitation but you could make your own selection if in the top 8. It appears that Woodie, Dean, et. al. felt that the process was well enough known that there was no need to repeat it. Unfortunately, the people running the selection process at Peachtree and VCU were not as well informed as many of the team members.

I don't know if it is good or bad that I wasn't at Peachtree, but if I'd been there, I would have made a bit of a "scene" as I ran out on the playing field and informed anyone within earshot that a team cannot accept an invitation after previously declining. I only wish the mistake had been discovered before it was too late to redo the alliance selection. This uncorrected mistake is going to be remembered for a long time by we FIRST addicts.

This is a little off-topic, and on a lighter note, but CONGRATULATIONS to team 801 and partners. You guys have had some less-than-great years recently, and it was great to see you win.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

Wow! I just got back from Peachtree and saw this thread. I'd have to take a look at the tape of the Peachtree to confirm this for myself (I was all over the place), but as far as I know we (being myself and the FIRST staff on site) totally missed this. If I didn't read this thread I may remained oblivious until I took a look at the tape. This is something we should have caught, but at this point what's done is done. We can only be sure to clarify this rule at the regionals in week 2 so that no one is confused. In any case, congrats to all those that won awards at Peachtree. It was an exciting and enjoyable event.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

Ok. I'm not going to say there was mistake made or not because I wasn't involved with it, but there are a few things you all need to remember before you freak out:

#1 - this is the very first week of regionals
#2 - many people were unclear on some of nuances (of alliance selection) and there were many clarifications, if you noticed
#3 - it was a great regional and no one at the event caught it if a mistake was made or not (teams, field staff, or otherwise)

Just relax I'm sure if the mistake was there (I haven't looked back at the video yet) it will be corrected by the second week....the rules aren't randomly being changed or anything of the sort. There will most likely be an explanation of the rules to you at your regional and how they will be enforced (via drivers meetings etc..).

Re: VCU Update
 

I agree with Kit and many others that feel this is very bad, and I would have been out there with him right in the middle of his "scene". The outcome (top to bottom, not just final champions) WAS different for these events than it would have been had the rules been followed AS WRITTEN. This procedure/rule has not changed in at least the four years I have been with FIRST. AND I don't believe there is any ambiguity. READ the rules literally - don't try to read INTO the rules anything that is not there. What is most frustrating to me is that the matches continued with either no one knowing the rules, or willing to stand up and identify the error. I hope this is cleared up before next weekend.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

I too am disturbed that no one stepped up to question this. I think it's probably a consequence of the fact that FIRST's #1 rule at an event is: All judges' decisions are final. I think there should really be a system in place for formally questioning judge rulings. It should be annoying and lengthy enough to give someone time to calm down if they percieve they've been affected by a bad call, and match results shouldn't change, but it should be there. It could've prevented this misunderstanding if a team felt they were able to question a rule interpretation that seems this wrong to veterans.

Anyways, it's obvious how this could have come about. The rule was being discussed, and it was mentioned that the implication for non-picking teams was that declining basically meant they were out of the competition. This partial functional definition was then generalized to all teams being picked and accepted as literally true. The refs just went a step or two beyond literally interpretting the rule. You'd be surprised what kinda of conclusions a small group of people under stress can argue themselves into.

EDIT: V2.0 Now with 50% less pretension and hubris.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

The refs were not involved in this discussion at all. It was a student who asked, and was brought up to a few people including Woodie. Woodie was the person who made this decision.

Please do not dump this on the refs. The refs at VCU did a WONDERFUL job and deserve kudos.

Wetzel

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

I was at Atlanta. I know for a fact that someone did question the invitation/acceptance of team 34 after team 34 had declined a previous invitation. This individual was directed to the scorer's table. Extensive discussions were held with FIRST personnel on site, the head ref and others. I was not privy to those discussions, which apparently lasted beyond the remainder of the selection process (probably would have been a good idea to halt the selection process until the issue was settled, but this did not happen). The decision was made not to unwind the completed selections to the error and fix it. Further questions should probably be directed to the FIRST people who were in Atlanta.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

1: If a team declines they are not eliglable to be chosen again
2: A team never has to accept any invitation
3: Any team that refuses an invitation can only play if they are/become a picker OR if they are available in the pool of robots for substitution. Unofficially if you decine and are not, or do become a picker, then you go to the bottom of the pool.
4: People do make mistakes.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

there was a captains meeting of all the teams before the selections were made at the Peachtree Regional. it was explained to us that if an alliance within the top 8 teams declined, they would still be allowed to pick when it was their turn. if a team that declined was not in the top 8, they would not be allowed to compete in the elimination rounds.
after this announcement was made, many teams questioned it and apparently the decision was not overturned. i think there may have been some miscommunication in the interperetation of the rules. im just making the point that this decision was talked about heavily. either way, i dont think the teams should have been picked again because i do believe that the best alliance won fairly.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

Wednesday morning and - apparently - no word from FIRST yet.

What are the chances of the regionals that start tomorrow using these interpretations as their own?

Another, perhaps better question: Are we overthinking this?

As Dean has said before, he doesn't want to get to a point where you need to be a lawyer to understand the rules. I think this is a negative aspect of that goal. The rule is simple and has worked well for years, but it seems that no one thought of ensuring that the letter of the rule matched its implementation.

The easiest solution is to get rid of the lawyer mindset. If I were handling the situation, I'd modify the rule to reflect the alliance selection process that was used in the past few seasons and, perhaps, apologize for what happened at VCU and Peachtree.

Until something like that happens, though, we've got the next week of regionals to worry about. I've got no idea what regionals are running - USFIRST.org is down again - but I can easily see one of the less established regionals using this version of the alliance process as a precedent. It shouldn't happen at Great Lakes, but who's to say that it won't happen at...say, the Boilermaker Regional?

In the end, though, I think this just proves that FIRST is run by humans. We create something, we screw it up, and then we get to deal with the outcomes we've created. ;)

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

I, too was hoping that FIRST would conspicuously address this whole thing on their web site, apologize for the mistakes at Peachtree and VCU, and re-clarify the alliance picking rules which, until last weekend, had been properly implemented for the last few years. Maybe they will bring it up at the upcoming regionals. I just hope it is addressed and clarified before we go into the selection process at UCF and the other regionals this Saturday.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

Just make sure you take your dancing shoes Kit ... in case you have to get out on the field and make a scene. Hopefully you won't have to use them. Unfortunately I can't be your dance partner - I'll be at GLR with zebra stripes on. I'll be watching the process closely there ...

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

I agree with the first post in the topic because everybody on our stategy team was sayig it was a violation of 8.4.1.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

There will not be this kind of problem at GLR. Dave Verbrugge is the MC and I am the announcer. The rule is clear and has been the same at least since the 2000 season:

If you are in the top 8 and you decline, then you can't be picked again; but you can be a picker. Example: If number 1 picks number 3 and 3 says no, then number 2 can't pick number 3, but number 3 can be a picker when it is their turn.

If you are not in the top 8 and you don't slide into the top 8 (via top eighters picking each other), then if you decline you do not play.

This rule has two main focuses:

1. Prevents back alley alliances. 2 and 3 have a secret agreement to work together, so 3 says no to 1 so 2 can pick them. This is prevented and it actually makes the number one seed worth something.

2. Allows a team in the top 8 to control their own destiny. If a team in the top 8 wants to be the alliance captain, then they have the right to decline a higher ranking top eighter and still be a picker.


This is the way it has been and the way it should be. If it was done differently at any regional, then mistakes were made.

Re: Alliance Picking Rules Change?!
 

This is unbelievable! I don't see how an arena full of FIRST people could have missed this. At BAE the MC almost forgot to let the 9th seed move up (since there was picking within the top 8) and almost the entire crowd starting yelling at him. If something like this ever happened at a regional or divison where 121 is competing, you better believe that most of us will be on the field ready to help interpret the rules. We didn't have to cause Benji is the man!!!

Again, this is over and done with. But the more we bring attention to it and educate refs and volunteers, the less likely it will happen at a regional or championship near you.