This is something I have been wondering about for a while.
A similar question has been asked before, but the situation I am thinking of would go differently.
Premise 1:
Alliances 1-4 have made first picks. Everyone declines alliance 5. This situation is different from the one above in that some alliances can be formed.
Premise 2:
All alliances have made first picks. In the second round, 1-4 make second picks and everyone declines 5.
Edit: Yes, you are all correct this should be 8-5.
For both of these (2 especially), the event could theoretically continue. The question is, does it?
Unrelated: Why do we use the term âAlliance Partnersâ? That is exactly what the word âalliesâ means.
That said, I worked the 2016 UNC Asheville district. It had exactly 24 teams, and back then there werenât the small-event rules we have now. So there had to be 8 alliances.
Because it was first-year FNC and he lives there, Aidan Browne was head ref. I asked him what would happen if someone declined out of playoffs and he said âAlliance 1 would have two robotsâ.
Which wouldâve been a death sentence for Alliance 1 since the rules required three robots to challenge the tower, but thankfully it didnât come to pass.
Since there are no rules stating how to proceed with this I will take a stab at how I would continue with this situation.
It has been stated before that in the event there were not enough available teams for an alliance to make a selection they would just have to go with 2v3. However at smaller events where this was a risk FIRST has since made rules and they would have less than 8 alliances.
Since FIRST canât force anyone to accept an invitation nor can they force alliance 5 to drop out of contention you would just run top 4. Everyone who declined 5 and 5 themselves are now in the pool of second round selections that the remaining 4 alliances get to pick from.
So to be clear this scenario is impossible since 1-4 pick after 5 in the second round but if we assume you mean 8-6 then you actually have a very interesting conundrum.
Honestly someone refusing a second round pick for reasons other than robot damage would be odd but for this thought experiment I would pull the 3 members of alliances 8, 7, and 6 ask if any of them would say yes to 5 if asked if so then we cut off the lowest alliance with a willing member and rerun second round from the new lowest seed (if the 8th seed captain is willing we run with 7 making back to back picks) the other two alliances know who is willing so most likely wonât try to pick them because it will just make us repeat the process over again, but 5 does not so you run the risk if you are a ânoâ of still getting scorched.
In the event none of them are then we do the same as if this happened in the first round and just run top 4. This does effectively mean that most of the teams who were already in an alliance will not make elims but this would be explained to them when asking if anyone would be willing to say yes to 5.
Please note I have 0 actual authority or insight into what would happen but this would be the way I would think to handle it
Opposite of âalliesâ: âenemiesâ. While a few people do use that term, typically those for whom English is a second language, most people in FIRST avoid using that.
I would suspect that neither scenario will happen, ever. The whole âif you decline, youâre outâ for anybody past about the # 8 seed makes it so that there either needs to be a Snowmageddon-level weather event approaching, or the # 5 captain somehow managed to make most of the event very mad at them without getting tossed, for it to be even remotely plausible. Between that, the Small Event rules, and the fields having a direct line to HQ, not gonna happen.
Oh, and for scenario 2? Iâd expect some 2v3 action, and quite possibly 2v2 action.
Also, a very minor nitpick: For Premise 2, youâve used the pre-2006/IRI selection order. Itâs 1-8, 8-1, (1-8 where applicable) for all other events.
All the answers noted above are correct, but thereâs also this: even if no one likes the captain of alliance 5, turning them down for anyone but another alliance captain means that team is out of the playoffs. I canât think of any teams that wouldnât just suck it up and work with the alliance that picks them under those circumstances. This is just another aspect of Gracious Professionalism, working with someone(s) that you may not want to but need to in order to achieve a goal.
Your scenarios donât seem real. I watched a team that lucked itâs way into the 4 alliance slot with a literally non-functional robot pick two alliance mates and get knocked out in quarters at an offseason two years ago.
They were stubborn about not accepting any help with the robot too.
They just needed to pick two teams who wouldnât play otherwise, and it was off to the races.
Premise 1: Alliances 1-4 would have 2 robots. Alliances 5-8 would have one robot Because if a non alliance captain declines, they done. CD would have a complete and total melt down.
Quite simply, the declining teams are ineligible to play unless theyâre captains.
If it got particularly bad, invoke Section 11.2âHead Ref consults others (FTA, tournament director, FRC HQ, etc) and the ruling they come up with is final.
And because of the âif you decline, youâre either a captain or youâre outâ rule, nobody is going to take the chance on that unless itâs a really odd situation.
We were at an event last season where a non captain team declined. 25 team field became 24 that involved high level discussion with First which ended with 24 is a full event (with no back up) so play as normal. It effected us because they just announced our allianceâs third robot. We were not given the opportunity to pick and the 24th team was not given an opportunity to decline. Not that would have changed anything. I think the team that declined thought they would become the backup robot and didnât realize that their day was done.
Doesnât happen often, does happen on occasion. One reason that I think the team experience can be improved by asking all the teams if they want to opt out of the playoffs entirely before selection starts, as it avoids some of the more interesting small-team-count issues like that.
Many years ago, an event (2005 Waterloo Regional) was planned with 24 teams and the intention that the first alliance would get a quarterfinal bye. There were 21 teams in the elimination round and 3 teams available as backups.
The rules didnât specifically offer this as an option, but the event was openly and notoriously conducted this way so that teams could plan accordingly.
Funny situation that this reminded me of, in the 2015 Israel off season 1690 came with a second robot that required a passive âslideâ for the totes. This slide was connected to the robot via cable to be considered one robot (pretty common for that season). This was a 23 team event, so when playoffs came around the event organizers randomly selected the # 3 alliance to only have two robots. We were the captain of that alliance and selected our off-season robot as the only partner, when someone came up with the idea to sign another robot to the alliance: the slide. That way we could get rid of the cable. This meant we had a whole drive team of students to âdriveâ the slide during the playoffs:
In 2016 we attended an off-season event with 23 teams. The refs decided the team with only 2 robots would get the full points if both Challanged the tower. It was considered making up for the handicap of 2v3. Teams were permitted to CHOOSE the non team as a part of alliance selections. (Alliance 2 ended choosing the Non team)
Many less years ago, this was repeated (2020 West Valley). Its very likely that this event + post-covid event numbers at multiple events prompted the now current rules for small events.
I think the team that declined thought they would become the backup robot and didnât realize that their day was done.
