سؤال و: VEX V5 Robotics Competition 2026-2027: Override
3270: SG10 — Classification of Cup-only removals in Head-to-Head and Robot Skills Matches
Dear GDC, We have reviewed Q&A 3153(d), which confirms that removing a Placed Cup from a neutral Goal violates <SG10> regardless of its effect on the score. We seek clarification on violation classification in the following scenarios. In each scenario, a Cup was already Placed on the uppermost Placed Pin of a neutral Goal before the interaction. There are no Scoring Objects above the Cup. Only the Cup is removed; all Pins and other Cups remain in their existing positions. Scenario A: The Cup’s transparent half faces downward. The Robot deliberately removes it to expose the Pin beneath it and make subsequent stacking easier. Scenario B: The same deliberate action occurs with the Cup’s opaque half facing downward, exposing the previously covered Pin Half. Scenario C: During an otherwise legal stacking attempt, the Robot accidentally dislodges the previously Placed Cup. Please consider both Cup orientations. Assume this is an isolated, unintentional interaction.
- In Head-to-Head Matches, should Scenarios A and B both be classified as Major Violations under <SG10> Violation Note 2, even when only one Cup is removed and no immediate scoring benefit occurs?
- For Scenario C, how should Match Affecting be evaluated when only a Cup is removed, given that the numerical calculations in <SG10> Violation Note 1 address removed Pins?
- In Driving Skills Matches and Autonomous Coding Skills Matches, where the Robot previously Placed the Cup during the same run, does Violation Note 2 independently make Scenarios A and B Major Violations, even without a net increase in the final score?
- For Scenario C in Robot Skills, how should “score affecting” under <RSC1> be evaluated when removing the Cup either exposes a scoring Pin Half or facilitates additional scoring later in the run? Thank you for your clarification.<SG10>
- The accidental removal of one Placed Cup from a neutral Goal during an otherwise legal stacking attempt would typically result in a Minor Violation. Here's why:
- <SG10> Violation note 1 covers Match Affecting calculations with a focus only on Pins removed, which does not apply here. (As mentioned in Q&A 3232, we felt that it would be too difficult to consistently track details such as which color Pins were visible or hidden in the stack, which is why we decided that Match Affecting calculations would disregard removed Cups and involve only removed Pins.)
- <SG10> Violation note 2 covers intentional, strategic, or egregious Violation, which also does not apply here.
- Per <SG10> Violation note 3, a Team that has repeatedly committed <SG10> Minor Violations over the course of a Match/event could see this Violation escalate to a Major Violation at the Head Referee’s discretion. If this were only an isolated incident, Violation note 3 would not apply.
-
Match Affecting calculations do not apply to <SG10> Violations that only involve the removal of a Placed Cup.
-
Per <RSC2.e>, Robots can add or remove Pins or Cups on all Goals. <SG9> and <SG10> do not apply in Robot Skills Matches.
-
Per <RSC2.e>, Robots can add or remove Pins or Cups on all Goals. <SG9> and <SG10> do not apply in Robot Skills Matches.