This Q&A is now read-only
Official Q&A: VEX V5 Robotics Competition 2025-2026: Push Back
2879: Clarification on Major / Minor for GG9
The text for GG9 says:
Major Violations of this rule should be rare, as Robots should never be designed to intentionally violate it.
If a robot is designed in such a way that it could violate it would that raise to the level of a Major Violation?
For example, suppose a robot's descoring mechanism is not vertical but comes at an angle such that no "hard stop" prevents the mechanism from breaking the plane of the tape (designating the enclosed portion of the Long Goal). Does the design alone infer a "robot designed to intentionally violate it", or would a conversation with the team be necessary to determine "intent"? One could imagine different treatment of a team who's mechanism starts off at an angle versus a team who's mechanism becomes bent as a result of gameplay.
Followup: Does having a descore mech inside the Long Goal (which automatically classifies the robot as "defensive" based on a different Q&A) while not actively moving blocks lead to:
- The referee issuing a warning to the robot to not do that, either by moving or retracting the descore mech
- Is failure to comply with the warning an instant Major, or does it need to go thru the Match Affecting logic?
- If Match Affecting, should only a Long Goal flip be considered? E.g. 10 points, or 20 points, or 20 points plus 3x the number of blocks there?
One more edge case. https://events.vex.com/V5RC/2025-2026/QA/2837 says that if a robot has a part "inside" the enclosed portion of the Long Goal at the end of auton, that is not a violation. Is the answer the same or different if a robot has a part inside the enclosed portion of the Long Goal at the end of driver control?
Thanks, 355U, for these questions.
We'll start by saying the first Violation note for rule <GG9> (Robots shouldn't be designed to intentionally violate it) will be removed---it was misleading and inaccurate for this game. That change is effective immediately, and has a big impact on your questions, which we'll now address.
If a robot is designed in such a way that it could violate it would that raise to the level of a Major Violation?
A design that could violate a rule under certain conditions does not necessarily mean that the Team intends to violate that rule. The important part is how the Team ensures compliance within the rules during the Match. Many rules can be violated by designs that can and should pass Robot inspection; this does not mean that those Teams should not pass inspection, or automatically receive Violations in a Match. They must instead understand the possibilities, and ensure they operate their Robot in a manner that does not violate the rule during a Match.
Does having a descore mech inside the Long Goal (which automatically classifies the robot as "defensive" based on a different Q&A) while not actively moving blocks lead to the referee issuing a warning to the robot to not do that, either by moving or retracting the descore mech?
If a referee sees a Team with any part of their Robot inside of the volume of the Goal while not actively moving Blocks, they should immediately warn the Team and ask them to move their Robot or remove the part of their Robot from inside of the Long Goal. This warning is instead intended to help the Team avoid a Violation.
Is failure to comply with the warning an instant Major, or does it need to go thru the Match Affecting logic?
If the Team ignores that warning and remains inside the Goal while not actively moving Blocks, they should be issued a Minor or Major Violation based on whether or not the Violation is Match Affecting.
If Match Affecting, should only a Long Goal flip be considered? E.g. 10 points, or 20 points, or 20 points plus 3x the number of blocks there?
The December 4 game manual update will include the following guidance for considering whether an <SG10> Violation is Match Affecting, and this guidance is effective immediately. An <SG10> Violation should be considered Match Affecting if the Team responsible ties or wins the Match by 10 point or less.
Regarding your final question, we believe you've slightly misquoted/misinterpreted the ruling in Q&A 2837, which states that (bold added for emphasis), "a Robot can keep a mechanism in the open part of a Goal during Autonomous Periods and Robot Skills Matches with no Violation." The logic for the end of the Match is slightly different, however, because the Robot is directly under the Team's control. Referees must consider the Robot's actions before the timer hits zero, whether the Team was warned to leave the Goal before the end of the Match, and whether they had time to react before the Match ended. This one has to remain a judgment call based on the context of the Match.