This Q&A is now read-only
Official Q&A: VEX V5 Robotics Competition 2025-2026: Push Back
2823: With the new clarification of G4, must teams write the programming for their robot
The clarification of rule G4 in question 2812 would suggest that the programming for the robot should reflect the skill level of the team.
We have increasingly seen teams download and use the Jackson Area Robotics template as base programming for their robot. This standard code available on GitHub provides functionality well beyond the capability of most teams. Even advanced teams rarely take time to learn how this code works.
If a team is using the JAR template, most of the code for their robot has been written for them. The JAR template is not just a collection of libraries to aid a programmer, it provides complete robot programming which students simply need to map to their hardware. it's drive code is so complete that it has this warning in the documentation - "Do not try to add extra motor groups, sensors, or values to the constructor or to remove any that you do not need. The code will not compile. Follow the style of the examples, only filling in fields that are already present."
Does rule G4 prohibit the use of full code sets not written by the team, such as the JAR template?
Thanks for your question, Doug.
Rules <G2>, <G4>, and the RECF Student-Centered Policy do not specifically prohibit the use of code sets not written by the Team, including the JAR template. As always, coaches should guide their Students to work within the guidance of the game manual and related policies, and should remind students of the requirements of the Student-Centered Policy.
The revision to rule <G4> that we posted in Q&A 2812 includes, "It is the responsibility of each Team to be able to explain and defend the design, construction, and programming of their Robot if questioned by referees, inspectors, Event Partners, or judges. Teams should be prepared to describe their design process, justify design decisions, and demonstrate a full understanding of how their Robot functions. If a Team is unable, for any reason, to provide reasonable evidence that their Robot is the result of their own work, it is appropriate to assume that the Team is in violation of G2 and/or G4." These statements also apply to the Team's code. This clarification will be reflected in the October 9 game manual update, and is effective immediately.
The revised rule <G4> also includes the statement, "For acceptable and unacceptable examples of mechanical design, construction, coding, and strategy solutions, please refer to the Student Centered Policy in the RECF Library."
As described in the RECF Student-Centered Policy (bold formatting added for emphasis), "Teams should create code that reflects the capabilities of their team members."
"Students with novice programming skills should use learning resources that emphasize developing and applying foundational knowledge, and should not incorporate programming concepts that are beyond their current ability level. This general guideline supports appropriate learning progressions and fair play at competitions.
"Teams that utilize example code or custom libraries from outside sources should use caution. The program used should represent the students’ efforts and abilities. Blindly using code without understanding the code functionality is not consistent with the educational goals of this program. Students should be able to understand and explain the code, and students should be able to demonstrate that they can program on a level equivalent to the code used in their mechanism."
If a possible <G4> violation is identified, it should immediately be brought to the Event Partner's attention and investigated using the steps in the RECF Code of Conduct Reporting Process.