Official Q&A: VEX V5 Robotics Competition 2025-2026: Push Back

<GG9><GG9> “Robots may not intentionally grasp, grapple, hook, attach to or otherwise Entangle with any Field Elements. Strategies with mechanisms that react against multiple sides of a Field Element in an effort to latch or clamp onto said Field Element are prohibited. The intent of this rule is to prevent Teams from unintentionally damaging the Field and/or from anchoring to or otherwise Entangling themselves with the Field.” Firstly, would it be possible to define each of the terms used in the ruling, seeing as they lack clarity. Grasp, Grapple, Hook, Attach To, Latch, Clamp, React, and Anchor are not defined within the rulebook. Merriam Webster defines clamping as, “to put securely in place or in a desired position.” Going from this definition, at what point is a robot using an aligner which resists a change in motion imparted from another robot considered in violation of GG9? Is the robot in violation for just aligning to the goal, as it is in a desired position? What specific physical conditions, or restrictions of motion, would a robot have to be in violation of GG9? Could the Game Design Committee come up with a clearer definition for each of the aforementioned terms, as the current definitions are too vague to be consistently applied correctly by head referees?

Below are a couple of examples of potential GG9 violations: Double Triangle Shaped Aligner: Bird’s Eye View:

Does having multiple robot mechanisms at different heights interacting with a goal change the ruling?

Different Types of Aligner: Flexwheels and V-Shape Aligner: Top Down View:

V Shaped Aligner and Triangle Aligner: Do multiple mechanisms of a robot that contribute to a stronger hold on a goal, lead to a violation, even if individually they do not fully constrain the robot?

Intake Flex Wheel Interaction: Forwards View:

Flexwheels Friction Holding On the Goal:

Flexwheels On Inside and Outside Edges of a Goal:

If flexwheels friction fit to the inside of the goal tower, is the robot in violation of GG9? What if, instead, the robot has flexwheels on both sides of the goal tower? Is there a difference in ruling based on distance between two flex wheels?

Goal Aligner Angles: Less than 90 Degrees Between the Aligner and Goal:

90 Degrees Between the Aligner and Goal:

At what angle would an aligner to the goal tower become a GG9 Violation? Is there a change in ruling if there is an offset between the center triangle and the outside v-shape?

Motion: Is there a point at which motion is constrained enough to be considered “anchored?” Ie. A robot that can only be moved by being hit at one or two axes. How about a robot that fully constrains themselves angularly?

Purpose of clarification The vagueness of GG9 definitions has inevitably led to design gray areas. Vagueness has created perceived harms in fairness. Gray areas have also degraded the purpose of the game as when teams stick to a goal all game and are difficult or nearly impossible to remove, this creates a strong incentive for teams to play the game wholly passively. In our experience, head referee rulings have been inconsistent and we believe a clarification would vastly improve matches by making GG9 ruling outcomes more consistent and clearly defined. We understand we are asking quite a few questions; However we believe clarifications to GG9 are crucial at this time, so we thank you so much for your time.