an issue before the trial court, the issue is waived on appeal, see, e.g., Trantor, 179 Ariz. at 300-01, 878 P.2d at 658-59, we observe that neither Trantor nor its progeny has created an unalterable rule of waiver. See id. at 300, 878 P.2d at 658 (qualifying that, “absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal” (emphasis added)); In re MH 2006-000023, 214 Ariz. 246, 249, ¶ 11, 150 P.3d 1267, 1270 (App.2007) (concluding that, given the liberty interests at stake, an involuntary treatment case presents one of the extraordinary circumstances in which an error not presented to the trial court may be presented in the first instance to the appellate court). See also City of Tempe v. Fleming, 168 Ariz. 454, 456, 815 P.2d 1, 3 (App. 1991) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 17 In State v. Richey, 160 Ariz. 564, 565,
recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding that our standard of review for decisions of the health care authority board  predecessor to the division  is very narrow and that we will not disturb the boards statutory interpretations absent a compelling indication of error internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding that the courts statute of limitations is jurisdictional in nature and is thus not subject to waiver or estoppel recognizing that the waiver rule is procedural not jurisdictional and we may suspend it in our discretion citations omitted recognizing that the rule an appealing party may not urge as grounds for reversal a theory which he failed to present below  is procedural and not jurisdictional