Alliance Picking Rules Change?!

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Natchez

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

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.

[Madison]

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

[Elgin Clock]

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>

[Winged Wonder]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

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>

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.

[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.

[Natchez]

Originally Posted by Winged Wonder

i'm not happy with this.

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.

[Winged Wonder]

Originally Posted by Natchez

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.

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.

[Beth Sweet]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

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

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!

[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.