Q&A

Figure FO-3: Shows "The recommended locations for Drive Team Members and Head Referees during Teamwork Matches." Is there also a recommended location for which side the audience is on? Or, is this not standardized and up to the discretion of the Event Partner <T4>

<T4><T4>

Often events in our region are a communal effort with multiple different organizations providing fields for official game-play. Many organizations mark ownership of their fields and game elements with permanent markers, labels, or other alterations.

1. To what extent does an Event Partner have the authority to declare a labeled or altered game element appropriate for official matches?
2. Does this authority lie within the Event Partner, Head Referee, or a combination of the two?
3. When are labels, permanent markers, or other markings considered to be as substantial alteration to game-play (if at all)

Example of labeled beam

At the end of a match's Driver Controlled Period, a referee instructs drivers to put their controllers down on the ground. The driver cannot put the controller down in the field because doing so may put them in violation of <SC1> and <GG4>. The driver also feels putting the controller down on the ground might be unsafe due to tripping hazards (<S1>). Also, due to concerns about damage to their controllers and/or the smart cable connection if the controller is accidentally kicked, stepped on, etc., the driver does not want to put their controller on the ground. This concern about damage to the controller is the result of a prior experience with a controller on the ground being stepped on and rendered unusable. However, the referee insists on drivers placing their controllers on the ground even after hearing the team's concern.

Does <T1> allow for the referee to require this procedure? Does this procedure fall under <T4>, and if so, should this be explained by the event partner prior to the start of matches (such as during an event meeting)?

<T4>

Hello,

Tournament manager makes noises at the start of the match as well as various other points throughout the match. Are these noises considered gameplay decisions, or can the EP change the noises that tournament manager makes as long as they convey the same meaning and abide by G1?

<RSC4>

During robot skills matches teams often opt to end their skills match early if continuing may damage their robot or there’s a problem with a sensor that would make continuing pointless (literally and figuratively).

At a recent event, a field tech asked the Event Partner to inform teams they could end their match early ONLY if they had informed the scorekeeper they would be recording a Skills Stop Time. The field tech wanted to reduce the number of early-aborted matches logged in the field’s V5 Robot Brain, to make it easier for himself to determine if aborted matches were due to field faults. The Event Partner instructed that teams had to allow the timer (and thus their robots due to the method of field control being used at the event) to continue if they had not discussed a Skills Stop Time in advance. This was frustrating to teams and could have resulted in damage to students’ robots, particularly if autonomous codes went awry. After discussion with a Head Referee, the decision was reversed and teams were again allowed to end their matches early, though a Skills Stop Time was only recorded if they’d discussed it in advance with the Scorekeeper at the field, as described in <RSC4>.

Can teams elect to end a Skills Match early for a reason other than recording a Skills Stop Time or does this scenario fall under <T4> The Event Partner has ultimate authority regarding all non-gameplay decisions during an event?

<T4> <T11>

To help event partners at events, can we use vinyl stickers to mark game elements to show them as EP/Event property? Specifically adding them to this year's triballs which gives better event branding and would allow us to give them out at the end of the event along with awards (reducing some of the waste produced from the yearly game elements). We've found it hasn't really changed any of the durability of the game elements with our teams and just gives a better visual appearance. Or would this be an option if we give adequate notice to all teams and allow them to practice with them the day before competition matches?

This season, lots of events have resulted in the breaking of Field Elements around the barrier, specifically the "VRC Large Pipe Cap” (276-8354-103) & the "VRC Large Pipe Extender” (276-8354-104). In the case that a competition can’t get a replacement of these pieces, or backups when they break during competitions, does the Event Partner have the ability to use replacement elements? Assuming these elements match the dimensions and functionality of those elements shipped by Vex.

This also brings into question the hierarchy within tournament rules. Specifically if <T4> gives the EP discretion over <T11> in this case.

<T4> states that

The Event Partner has ultimate authority regarding all non-gameplay decisions during an event.

<T11> states that

Fields may be repaired at the Event Partner’s discretion. ... Examples of prohibited modifications include, but are not limited to: … unofficial/replica Field Elements

You can see potential replacements here: https://www.vexforum.com/t/3d-printable-barrier-replacements-not-comp-legal-purdue-sigbots/122371?u=max_johnson03

Replacements in Use