Picking an Alliance Captain after they have already picked

[topgun]

Is an Alliance Captain allowed to be selected by a higher seeded Alliance Captain if they have already selected teams for their alliance?

Example: Alliance Captain #8 selects their first choice and second choice and we are proceeding back up to Alliance Captain #1 in the selection process. Alliance Captain #8 had not previously turned down an alliance invitation. Could Alliance Captain #N select Alliance Captain #8 as their second choice alliance partner?

[Peck]

Once you have an alliance partner, you can't be selected. period

[topgun]

Originally Posted by Peck

Once you have an alliance partner, you can't be selected. period

Please cite the rule?

[CalTran]

It's a clever theory, but it's in a somewhat unwritten rule of FIRST. It is specifically countered, but not by a "rule," more of a guide line.

5.4 Elimination Matches

At the end of the Qualification Matches, the top eight seeded teams will become the Alliance Leads. The top seeded Alliances will be designated, in order, Alliance One, Alliance Two, etc., down to Alliance Eight. Using the Alliance selection process described below, each team will choose two other teams to join their Alliance.
5.4.1 Alliance Selection Process

Each team will choose a student team Representative who will proceed to the Arena at the designated time (typically before the lunch break on the final day of the Competition) to represent their team. The team Representative for each Alliance Lead is called the Alliance Captain.



The Alliance selection process will consist of two rounds during which each Alliance Captain will invite a team seeded below them in the standings to join their Alliance. The invited team must not already have declined an invitation.



Round 1: In descending order (Alliance One to Alliance Eight) each Alliance Captain will invite a single team. 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 an invitation from a top eight Alliance to another Alliance Lead is accepted, all lower Alliance Leads are promoted one spot and the next highest seeded unselected team will move up to become Alliance Eight.



If the team declines, that team is not eligible to be picked again and the Alliance Captain extends another invitation to a different team.

If an invitation from a top eight Alliance to another Alliance Lead is declined, the declining team may still invite teams to join their Alliance, however, it cannot accept invitations from other Alliances.



The process continues until Alliance Eight makes a successful invitation.



Round 2: The same method is used for each Alliance Captain's second choice except the selection order is reversed, with Alliance Eight picking first and Alliance One picking last. This process will lead to eight Alliances of three teams.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by topgun

Please cite the rule?

Technically, there isn't a rule. But yeah, you can't do that.

[jspatz1]

The competition manual does leave some things to common sense. For example you cannot pick a team that is not at the event, but there is no actual rule against it.

Another way to look at it: Once you have picked, you are picked by the team you picked.

[topgun]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

The competition manual does leave some things to common sense. For example you cannot pick a team that is not at the event, but there is no actual rule against it.

Not a relevant example. The team has to be seeded below you to be picked, which means they are at the competition.

Once you have an alliance partner, you can't be selected. period

Technically, there isn't a rule. But yeah, you can't do that.

I find it interesting that for all the lawyering people play with the rules, that this one isn't a rule, but just seems to be a common perception. But if someone challenged it (on the field during alliance selection) wouldn't the ref have to allow it?

[JohnSchneider]

Number 8 picks numbers 1 and 2....

lol no

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

Number 8 picks numbers 1 and 2....

lol no

More like number three picks numbers one and two. Definitely not a "lol."

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by topgun

The team has to be seeded below you to be picked, which means they are at the competition.

Ah, but it doesn't SAY that they have to be at the same competition. That's just a common perception.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by topgun

I find it interesting that for all the lawyering people play with the rules, that this one isn't a rule, but just seems to be a common perception. But if someone challenged it (on the field during alliance selection) wouldn't the ref have to allow it?

I think that you'll find, looking through CD posts, that I'm not a rules-lawyer type when it comes to FRC games, so whether or not you find that "interesting" is of no concern whatsoever (to me at least). Play the spirit of the rules, every time, and it will serve you and your team well.

As for whether or not a ref would have to allow it: no, they wouldn't, because they're authorized to use their judgement when making calls.

There is a small, valid point here that the rule could be clarified to explicitly state outright that teams already on an alliance are not available for selection, but that's nearly as silly as stating that teams not competing at that regional (or teams that either do not yet or no longer exist) are not available for selection either.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

...but that's nearly as silly as stating that teams not competing at that regional (or teams that either do not yet or no longer exist) are not available for selection either.

I'd say "silly" is the operative word here.

[bduddy]

You're right - there is no rule against it. At the same time, it's obvious by the rest of the procedure that that is not supposed to happen. Still, it couldn't hurt for FIRST to clarify the rules for next year...

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by bduddy

You're right - there is no rule against it. At the same time, it's obvious by the rest of the procedure that that is not supposed to happen. Still, it couldn't hurt for FIRST to clarify the rules for next year...

While they are at it, they should clarify in the rules that you have to turn your robot on for it to work. This should be a higher priority to the rules clarification because many teams each year try to avoid turning their robot on only to be told by the field crew that it is required. This would prevent people from trying to leave their robots off.

Wetzel

[Gray Adams]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

While they are at it, they should clarify in the rules that you have to turn your robot on for it to work. This should be a higher priority to the rules clarification because many teams each year try to avoid turning their robot on only to be told by the field crew that it is required. This would prevent people from trying to leave their robots off.

Wetzel

We learned that it isn't required if nobody notices