Could alliance picks go this way

Have an inquiry and didn’t find a rule to go by.
Basic question, can a team pick another alliance captain on the way back down?
So team 1 picks 2, 3 now 2 picks 7, yada yada to 8 then back down 3 now two picks 44 THEN 1 invites 3 now 2. 3 now 2 has not been invited by another, so has not refused any invite, can they accept? The further quandary, if yes, do all alliance captains move up 1 position, leaving their picks behind?

This is kind of hard to follow, but no, once someone is an alliance captain they can’t be selected by another team.

More clarification, once a team is an alliance captain and has declined or had another team accept, they cannot be picked by another team.

Specifically in section 5.4.1 ALLIANCE Selection Process

…ALLIANCE CAPTAIN invites a Team seeded below them in the standings to join their ALLIANCE…

So you are not allowed to pick teams seeded above you. So the 2 alliance captain cannot pick the 1 seed. (1 alliance captain). So on

I saw that but, in my concern, the number 1 seed has picked only lower seeded teams and none have been invited by another (nor could they be). Basically they picked 2 first then as the 16th overall pick, picks the new 2 team captain.

What the OP is getting at is that the rules don’t specifically say that alliance captains are not eligible to be picked.

Interesting point. The rules don’t seem to actually cover it. Implied is once you are part of an Alliance (completion of the 1st round), you cannot leave your alliance to join another one. It is not specifically stated in the rules.

Another conundrum is the rules don’t explicitly say you cannot accept multiple invitations to be a member of an alliance. IE the rules only says you ineligible to accept an invitation if you have declined one.

Maybe ask Q&A about this next year. Realistically though your head referee’s word is final. You are not going to get a lot of time (if any) to discuss it. :slight_smile:

The rules don’t look to cover it, and as to your point and mine earlier, imagine the multiple concerns it can create. Perhaps one can point to Gracious Professionalism, however professionals jump ship for improvement of team or challenge regularly. The rules don’t look to cover it, and as to your point and mine earlier, imagine the multiple concerns it can create. Perhaps one can point to Gracious Professionalism, however professionals jump ship for improvement of team or challenge regularly.
While I appreciate the head ref decision, I think this need be answered by actual rule rather than a time pressured individual.

Interestingly, the FTC rules cover this scenario very explicitly and clearly (and would work even with the serpentine selection rules of FRC):

A Team is available if it is not already part of an Alliance, or has not already declined an Alliance invitation.

I like this because it also clarifies if they can be a back-up team. I had to do a rule check at AZ West because a team declined but I wasn’t sure if they were still eligible.

Same thing happened to 5188 at the NC Guilford District. Luckily Aiden was there personally to bring up the relevant rule.

Even though there is no explicit rule on it, the way I understand this question does not make logical sense. For this to occur, the team 1 in question would be trying to pick away the captain of an already completed alliance, due to how pick order works.

When people talk about “lawyering the rules,” discussions like this is what they’re referring to. Every FRC veteran understands the alliance selection process. Why are FRC veterans now trying to find a way to break it?

This shouldn’t surprise you. In FIRST, with regard to the game, there are no unwritten rules. Just rules/strategies/lack of rules that people wish they thought to exploit first.

It’s the offseason. They don’t have anything better to do. :stuck_out_tongue:

\s

Sure they do.

There’s all KINDS of “standard CD arguments” to restart, for one thing. There’s also robots to tune for offseason events. Can’t forget planning what they aren’t going to get done this summer (AKA, “summer project”).

And that’s just on the robot side; I’m ignoring the rest of life here!

What would happen if everyone at a tournament declined a pick from the number one seed? It would never happen because people outside the top 8 would want to make sure they play in playoffs but if all the teams decline then no alliances can be formed. Who would qualify for worlds? No one?

If everyone at a tournament declined a pick from the number one seed, I rather suspect that someone would be on the phone to HQ as soon as they figured out that they wouldn’t have enough non-declining teams to form alliances for further guidance.

And I’d rather suspect that the guidance would indicate to run selections again… probably with some announcement about how you need a full set of teams…

I saw a comment on CD that at a 24 or 25 team event this year (I believe it was a NC district, I don’t remember what event) that the first seed alliance would go with only two robots if that was the case. Extrapolating (which to some people is a bad word) that logic, there would be 8 single robot robot alliances since every team declined before the second seed was able to make their first pick.

That reminds me, off to go talk about 254 being mentor built in a poorly grammared post… :stuck_out_tongue:

In any case this (picking teams that have already been picked) is an interesting conundrum. I’m surprised it’s taken this long to think of at all. However I would argue that this is an* actual situation where a team would be non-GP* (for once), as you would be poaching teams from other alliances.