Q&A

VEX V5 Robotics Competition 2026-2027: Override

معلوم: GG18

Welcome to the official VEX V5 Robotics Competition Question & Answer system, where all registered teams have the opportunity to ask for official rules interpretations and clarifications. This Q&A system is the only source for official V5RC rules clarifications, and the clarifications made here from the Game Design Committee (GDC) are considered as official and binding as the written Game Manual itself.

Please review the Q&A Usage Guidelines before posting. This system is only intended for specific V5RC game rules questions.

3285: SG11 Holding a Pin down in the Loader

18-Oct-2026
GG18 SG11

<SG11>

Q&A 3235 clarified that the following image is entirely legal [Example Image]

If a team member is actively pushing down on the loaders handle to hold the following Pin and Cup in place so a robot can come and picks up the pin and cup, is that considered "Excessive, unnecessary, or unsafe actions" or <GG18> Use Scoring Objects to play the game? <GG18> Or is this entirely legal a strategy in holding things in place?

تم الرد بواسطة committee

There are no rules prohibiting this interaction. It would be legal for a Drive Team Member to push down on a Loader handle, such that the Loader is applying force to hold a Pin and Cup in place.

3121: Forcing an opponent to become 'stuck'

4-Mar-2026
GG9 GG14 GG16 GG18

Is it legal for a RED robot to intentionally push BLUE onto blocks in an attempt to get them 'stuck' and unable to move for the rest of the game. Or is this a <GG18> and <GG14> violation?

Similarly, how should refs rule interactions where RED forces BLUE to become 'stuck' to field elements, e.g:

  • Wedged between the bottom of the long goal and the foam tiles
  • Temporarily unable to move out of the gaps in the bottom of the long goal (part of the robot is inside of the red circled area)
  • Otherwise unable to move away from the park zone or a loader

Would this count as forcing an opponent to become entangled with the field, taking into account <GG9>, <GG14>, and <GG16>?

[Example Image]

تم الرد بواسطة committee

There is no rule that prohibits pushing a Robot onto Blocks, against a Goal, into a Loader, or into the Park Zone unless it's determined to be part of a strategy specifically intended to damage an opposing Robot. If a Robot becomes entangled as a result of one of these interactions, it should generally be considered incidental to gameplay and no Violations should be awarded.

2918: GG18 Intentionally Using Block to Park

14-Nov-2025
GG18 SC4

Clarification of Q&A 2672 regarding GG18

Would it be legal for a team to put the match preload into a mechanism that would be used to help them park at the end of the match? The team's idea is to put the preload into a "holder" with part of the block exposed. During the protected time, the team would drive into the parking zone and initiate a mechanism that would use the block to keep their robot from touching the field tiles outside the parking zone. This satisfies all criteria of SC4. Would this be considered using the block as a "glove" as outlined in GG18 and therefore be illegal?

<SC4>

<GG18>

تم الرد بواسطة committee

Hi, Team 47126A.

This would be legal, as long as the Robot and Preload meet all criteria of rules <SG1> and <SG5> at the beginning of the Match.

2751: Meaning of "Indirect" for SG11

3-Aug-2025
GG18 SG11

<SG11>

If Red Robot 1 is attempting to Park (but is not yet Parked, but is in contact with the Red Park Zone) while Blue Robot 1 is attempting to defend it. Red Robot 1 is in contact with the Park Zone when Blue Robot 1 attempts to push it into the wall. Is this "Indirect" contact with the Park Zone? If so, would it be fair to say that this is "intentional" and/or "strategic"? In the course of this action, Blue Robot 1 may also come into direct contact with the Park Zone (still while the Red Robot is not parked, or is in a bang-bang state where it is difficult to determine - in which case, as the "offensive" robot, would Red Robot 1 get the "benefit of the doubt"?).

At the UND Signature Event at the Mall of America, on the livestream at 32:09, a head referee defines the Park Zone as the plastic parts AND the FULLY PARKED robot and that "if your robot is not fully parked, your robot is not protected". Given the presence of members of the GDC at the tournament, one would assume that her statements about this interpretation of SG11 are in alignment with the GDC. Given that, can the GDC clarify or provide examples for what "Indirect" contact with the Park Zone in the last 20 seconds would constitute at violation of SG11? Based on GG18, it would seem Blue using a Block to contact the Park Zone would be a violation of SG11. Is this the only such scenario for "Indirect" contact?

تم الرد بواسطة committee

Based on early season Match play, the September Game Manual update will include changes to the definition of the Park Zone and rule <SG11>. These changes will expand the definition of Park Zone to include the portion of the Field Tiles that is bordered by the Field Perimeter and the plastic extrusions of the Park Zone, and will extend the protection of <SG11> to include any Robot that is at least partially within the vertical projection of its Alliance-colored Park Zone. These changes are effective now.

Using a Block to contact the opponent's Park Zone counts as indirect contact and a Violation of <SG11>. Pushing an opposing Robot into their Park Zone barrier, or into contact with a protected Robot in that Park Zone, also counts as indirect contact and an <SG11> Violation.

Finally, your assumption that the GDC plays an active role in referee calls at events other than the VEX Robotics World Championship is inaccurate. While members of the GDC may occasionally listen in on rule discussions during events, we have no authority or official role at those non-Worlds events, and those rulings may or may not be in line with the opinions of the GDC or its members. As described in the red box following rule <T1>, the "right" call is the one made by a Head Referee in the moment.