[Kevin Sevcik]

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.