Alliance Picking Rules Change?!

[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.

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

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.

Just make sure you take your dancing shoes Kit ... in case you have to get out on the field and make a scene. Hopefully you won't have to use them. Unfortunately I can't be your dance partner - I'll be at GLR with zebra stripes on. I'll be watching the process closely there ...

[spadercool]

I agree with the first post in the topic because everybody on our stategy team was sayig it was a violation of 8.4.1.

[Paul Copioli]

There will not be this kind of problem at GLR. Dave Verbrugge is the MC and I am the announcer. The rule is clear and has been the same at least since the 2000 season:

If you are in the top 8 and you decline, then you can't be picked again; but you can be a picker. Example: If number 1 picks number 3 and 3 says no, then number 2 can't pick number 3, but number 3 can be a picker when it is their turn.

If you are not in the top 8 and you don't slide into the top 8 (via top eighters picking each other), then if you decline you do not play.

This rule has two main focuses:

1. Prevents back alley alliances. 2 and 3 have a secret agreement to work together, so 3 says no to 1 so 2 can pick them. This is prevented and it actually makes the number one seed worth something.

2. Allows a team in the top 8 to control their own destiny. If a team in the top 8 wants to be the alliance captain, then they have the right to decline a higher ranking top eighter and still be a picker.


This is the way it has been and the way it should be. If it was done differently at any regional, then mistakes were made.

[Rick]

This is unbelievable! I don't see how an arena full of FIRST people could have missed this. At BAE the MC almost forgot to let the 9th seed move up (since there was picking within the top 8) and almost the entire crowd starting yelling at him. If something like this ever happened at a regional or divison where 121 is competing, you better believe that most of us will be on the field ready to help interpret the rules. We didn't have to cause Benji is the man!!!

Again, this is over and done with. But the more we bring attention to it and educate refs and volunteers, the less likely it will happen at a regional or championship near you.