Alliance Picking Rules Change?!

[Wetzel]

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

[Winged Wonder]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

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

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.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Winged Wonder

Regarding VCU, *snip* 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. *snip*

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

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

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

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.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

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

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.

[Jeremy Roberts]

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.

[Stephen Kowski]

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..).

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

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.

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.

[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.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Anyways, it's obvious how this came 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.

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

[Sparrow]

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.

[Steve W]

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.

[team1611]

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.

[IMDWalrus]

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.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by IMDWalrus

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.

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.