Picking an Alliance Captain after they have already 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

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by Gray Adams

We learned that it isn't required if nobody notices

Off topic of the OP but we learned that as well in 2010 in Oklahoma. The only match we lost, and were one away from being undefeated in Qualifications, was our Match 8, where we forgot to turn Trigger on...

[kevin.li.rit]

I recall this happening one year in during the second round, a team tried to select another seed below them (when it wasn't a serpentine selection). I think the response was something along the lines of "That team is the 8th seed and cannot be selected." The team trying to select them did it by mistake since they dropped into that slot.

[Lil' Lavery]

Common sense would also dictate you pick from the teams on the "Available" portion of the alliance selection screen. Once the #8 seed has started their alliance, they are no longer on that portion of the screen.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Still, it couldn't hurt for FIRST to clarify the rules for next year...

It could hurt. The rules book is already a behemoth. There are 1,000 other obvious points that are not in writing. Do we really want kick-off day to be all of the same fun as reading through the IRS tax code?

[dodar]

This would allow for a situation like: 1 picks 2 and accepts, then all the selcetions go through and it gets back to 1 and they pick alliance captain 8. Then what happens? Does captain 8 wave goodbye to the 2 teams they just picked? No. Everyone looks at them like he just said 2+2=22. Why? Because you cant pick a team that is already with another team.

[CalTran]

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.

I think that the guidelines previously quoted, along with the emphasis on these ones inherently make this "strategy" frowned upon.