Picking an Alliance Captain after they have already picked

[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...

[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.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by topgun

But if someone challenged it (on the field during alliance selection) wouldn't the ref have to allow it?

The ref is eating lunch. The emcee runs the alliance selection, and you should be nice to him. It does seem like an oversight though, huh?

[EricH]

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?

No. He wouldn't. See below.

The FIRST thing to happen would be an immediate call to HQ, or whoever representing HQ is available, for clarification. Bill Miller, any GDC members onsite, whoever the ref and regional director need to get ahold of. This is because it's a situation that is not in the rules. (The fourth thing to happen would be that it would be in the rules in following years.)

The second thing to happen would be the announcement of the GDC ruling.

The third thing to happen would be either the picking team picking again, which is more likely, or a ton of confusion as the entire picking would need to be redone. Let's face it, if #1 picks #6 as the final pick, the #6 alliance has to have another team, or quite possibly the #7 and #8 have to move up, leaving the #9 team to move up and now they have to get picks...

And the final thing to happen is memory. Your team, if they insisted on challenging this during alliance selection, would be remembered for years as "that team that caused the big mess in the Magnolia Regional alliance selection" if it was successfully challenged. (And if it was unsuccessful? Everyone knows where the rule explicitly disallowing picking alliance captains who have already picked comes from for years to come.)


Of course, this is an easy tactic to defeat: All the lower-seeded captain has to do is say "We decline. As you can see, we already have an alliance." and that's that. That's been the de facto reason for years when someone who's been picked is picked again; it just hasn't been stated as such.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by EricH

No. He wouldn't. See below.

The FIRST thing to happen would be an immediate call to HQ, or whoever representing HQ is available, for clarification. Bill Miller, any GDC members onsite, whoever the ref and regional director need to get ahold of. This is because it's a situation that is not in the rules. (The fourth thing to happen would be that it would be in the rules in following years.)

The second thing to happen would be the announcement of the GDC ruling.

The third thing to happen would be either the picking team picking again, which is more likely, or a ton of confusion as the entire picking would need to be redone. Let's face it, if #1 picks #6 as the final pick, the #6 alliance has to have another team, or quite possibly the #7 and #8 have to move up, leaving the #9 team to move up and now they have to get picks...

And the final thing to happen is memory. Your team, if they insisted on challenging this during alliance selection, would be remembered for years as "that team that caused the big mess in the Magnolia Regional alliance selection" if it was successfully challenged. (And if it was unsuccessful? Everyone knows where the rule explicitly disallowing picking alliance captains who have already picked comes from for years to come.)


Of course, this is an easy tactic to defeat: All the lower-seeded captain has to do is say "We decline. As you can see, we already have an alliance." and that's that. That's been the de facto reason for years when someone who's been picked is picked again; it just hasn't been stated as such.

I doubt that call even gets made. This is a what if question that doesn't have legs, and only gets bothersome after the third no gets talked around. Once a team has declined or is in an alliance, they are not available to be picked.

Wetzel

[Cory]

Originally Posted by topgun

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





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?

No, because the refs aren't stupid.

[BRAVESaj25bd8]

Too bad you didn't post this a couple weeks ago. The GDC could have sent out an update saying it was legal and won the award for most concern caused by an April Fools Day prank.

[DonRotolo]

sigh. Patently absurd premise.