Klausimai ir atsakymai

We had submitted a request to use a 3D printed part to secure the side goals to the side of the field. This goal, as originally designed, is failing in use 100% of the time. It is not possible to keep the height of the lower ring within tolerance throughout a match without some additional support. The PVC posts are not rigid enough to hold keep the rings of the goal in place through normal game play.

The 3D printed part we have suggested provides needed support by securing the second ring to the field side. Without support, these goals do not hold up to game play and the opening between the first and second ring cannot be maintained within the required specification.

We are happy to provide the files for the 3D printed part to VEX and to all all event partners. Or we are open to a metal bracket, similar to that used in the field corners.

The definition of Owned states:

Owned - A Goal status. A Goal is considered Owned by an Alliance if its colored Ball is the vertically highest Scored Ball in that Goal.

The definition of Scored states:

Scored - A Ball status. A Ball is considered Scored in a Goal if it is not touching a Robot of the same color as the Ball and meets all of the following criteria.

• The Ball is fully or partially within the outer edge of the Goal.

• The Ball is fully below the upper edge of the Goal.

• The Ball is not contacting the foam tiles outside of the Goal.

What happens if two balls of opposing colors are scored in a goal, but neither is higher than the other? For example, see this picture: https://imgur.com/a/Kz5IOjz

As documented in this thread on the forum: https://www.vexforum.com/t/ball-lockout-critical-flaw-in-game-design/80888

it is possible to "lock" balls in corner goals by shoving them into the tight space between the poles and the rings. Once "locked" balls are difficult to remove by hand and are extremely difficult for robots to remove. As Change Up is intended to be a back and forth game with copious amounts of descoring, it seems odd that this be possible. Did the GDC intend that this strategy be possible? If not, will the GDC consider making provisions to prevent balls from becoming "locked", such as by modifying the field specifications to include a stand off mounted to the bottom ring?

Here is a direct link to a picture: https://www.vexforum.com/uploads/default/original/3X/6/f/6fe513ed40c912dd38536246de508b1a6cbdf6ef.jpeg

Is there a strict violation on where the drivers stand and operate. below picture from FO-3 kind of give an impression that blue team drivers have to be on the blue bean bag loading zone side and red team drivers have to be on the red bean bag loading zone side is that a correct assumption.

Could you please clarify this practice: teams arrive at the field, and one team requests the head referee to perform a size compliance check on an opposing team before the match begins. The head referee of course has the ability to call for spot inspection, but I am wondering if there is any supporting documentation in the game manual allowing teams to request a spot inspection.

I could not find anything on the game manual to support this practice. Thanks for considering this question.

One of our teams currently has a member that will be transferring to a new school, but still wants to compete with his current team. Is this permitted, even though he will no longer one of our students student?

<G1> "Not okay for Teams in an Alliance to intentionally play beneath their abilities to manipulate the Match results."

Which of these would be percieved as violation of playing beneath their abilities?

1. A team intentionally / strategically loses a qualification match.
2. A team intentionally / strategically loses a elimination match.
3. A team intentionally / strategically runs a autonomous that does not get AWP in a qualification match.
4. A team intentionally / strategically scores for their opponent to boost their Strength of Schedule Points, but still wins the match.
5. A team intentionally / strategically scores for their opponent to boost their Strength of Schedule Points, but loses the match.
6. A team does not use certain aspects of their robot or strategies until eliminations or later in the event.

We would assume 1-3 are violations of <G1>, but we seek clarification on 4-6.

Thanks GDC!

Looking for clarification to answers to 2544: SG7 & SC8: Forcing Loss of AWP.

While at a tournament this weekend, prior to start of match R1 appeared to program a new auton to their robot. At the start of auton period, R1 drove in a straight line crossing the auton line and going all the way over to the Blue side while pushing red and blue rings with it and stopping near the field wall disrupting the auton of B1. Referees deliberated for a while and ultimately gave auton bonus to Blue but no win point for Blue and no disqualification for R1. The crossing appeared intentional to deliberately impact B1 from achieving winpoint bonus. Not getting winpoint caused B1 to drop from 1st place to 3rd place in qualifications (this was B1's last quals match) and changed the dynamic of alliance selection. Questions: If intentional, is there any situation where Referees replay autonomous period? Can referees ask to see autonomous code to make determination if intentional? Seems as if G1, G13c, G17, as well as SG7 would apply. R1 losing auton bonus was consequence of crossing, but B1 was essentially penalized by not having opportunity to finish match auton to try to complete the requirements for winpoint. Believe some additional rule clarification is needed for this type of situation/action or to discourage this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW44S5ESwdY&t=22684s Match 91 at the 6 hr 17 second mark

The latest official ruling in the Q&A have caused some confusion for the kids on our team. Below is how the team have interpreted the game and how they formulated their robot and game strategies.

Referencing the Game Manual Version 3.0

Page 1 — Introduction

The primary objectives of the game are to Pass the Balls between Robots, score Balls through Targets, and Clear Switches. Balls are introduced to the field through the Loading Station or, during the last 15 seconds of a Match, a Rapid Load Zone.

Page 6 — General Definitions

Field – The entire playing Field, being six (6) field tiles wide by eight (8) field tiles long (totaling forty-eight (48) field tiles), including the Field Perimeter.

Page 12 — Game-Specific Definitions

Loading Station – The gray structure, built out of VEX IQ parts, that is attached to the Field Perimeter opposite the Goal Wall. The Loading Station is intended to receive Balls from a human Loader and randomly send them left or right into the Load Zone.

Load Zone – An area of the Field containing the Loading Station, bound by the Field Perimeter and the inside of the second solid black line from the edge of the Field (marked by two yellow VEX IQ beams).The Load Zone is an infinitely tall 3-dimensional volume; “reaching over” the black line without contacting the Floor would still constitute being partially in the Load Zone.

Page 2 — About the Game Manual - A Note from the GDC

Obviously, all Teams must adhere to these rules, and any stated intents of these rules.

In consideration of everything listed above, our team has interpreted the above manual entries as follows:

The team must adhere to all rules and stated intents in the manual, including the intended use of the loading station; it receives balls from a human loader and randomly send them left or right into the 3-dimensional volume of the load zone at which point the robot can pickup the ball.

The team’s understanding is any robot action that prevents the completion of the intended use of the Loading Station would be a violation, specifically its ability to randomize.

2052: <SG4d> - Additional Clarification on Robots in Loading Zone

If the human Loader is no longer contacting a Ball that is being (or has been) Loaded, it is legal for a Robot to enter the Load Zone.

In consideration of Q&A 2052, our team’s interpretation of the game remained the same.

When a human loader is no longer in contact with a ball that is being loaded, the robot can enter the load zone and its 3-dimensional volume, including contact with the loading station, as long as the robot does not violate the intended use of the loading station to introduce the ball into the field randomly left or right.

2484: Can a robot extend over the front of the Loading Station

There is no rule prohibiting a Robot from making contact with a Ball in the Loading Station before the Ball is "randomized" by falling left or right onto the Floor.

<SG4> clause D simply states, "No Robot(s) may be in the Load Zone at the time the Ball is released by the Loader."

The answer to 2484 counters and negates the intended use of the Loading Station per the definition in the manual as highlighted previously.

The definition of “loading station” applies every time “loading station” is referenced in the manual, therefore, it isn’t defined under any Rules, but defined in the “Game-Specific Definitions” section of the manual.

The ruling in Q&A 2484 changes the definition and intention of Loading Station.

In this case, would the committee be able to reevaluate the official ruling in Q&A 2484 to match the definition of Loading station per the game manual?

Else, which takes precedence—the definition of Loading Station in the latest version of the game manual or the definition of Loading Station without the intent of randomizing as described in the official ruling in the

<G1>, <G3>, <R3>, <T5>, <T6>, Code of Conduct

If a team notices a problem with another team’s robot, which would likely cause that team to fail a ‘spot inspection’, do they have an obligation to report that information in a timely manner? Or could they wait until it is strategically advantageous to do so?

Example: During qualification matches, Team A noticed that Team B’s robot brain placement probably should not have passed inspection. Fixing the problem would have taken considerable time. Rather than approaching Team B and letting them know so they could fix their robot proactively, or informing the Head Referee directly, Team A waited until they were about to face Team B in a semi-final elimination match before pointing out the problem to the Head Referee.

Should Team B be allowed to play their match since they’ve played through all the qualification matches and it’s at the Head Referee’s discretion whether to conduct spot inspections? Or should their robot be removed from the field per R3, T5 & T6. Has Team A violated G1, G3, or the Code of Conduct?

I have a question regarding the legality of students or adults calling out from the stands/audience to drivers during a match. By far the two most common examples I have seen of this are:

• Someone periodically calling out the remaining time in the match, particularly if the students on the drive team are unable to see a match timer.
• Someone calling out "Get the yellow hub" or "Go hang" near the end of the match.

I have never seen this done in a disrespectful way so assume for this question that nothing is being said in a derogatory or offensive manner.

I have been told "All Drive team members are in Drivers stations and are students. There are NO coaches - Thus the coaching from any location is illegal." and that teams could be disqualified because of this. The reasoning for this was based on their interpretation of the following from the game manual and Code of Conduct:

G1 In all aspects of the VEX IQ Challenge program, the Students make the decisions and do the work with adult mentorship. Code of Conduct: • Student-centered teams with limited adult assistance.
G3 When reading and applying the various rules in this document, please remember that common sense always applies in the VEX IQ Challenge.

Nothing in the above would apply to students "coaching." Also, "adult mentorship" and "limited adult assistance" could be intepreted to allow adult "coaching" during a match.

So, I have two specific questions.

1. Are students in the stands/audience allowed to call out time or things like "Go hang"?
2. Are adults in the stands/audience allowed to call out time or things like "Go hang"?

For completeness here are rules G1, G2, and G3 in their entirety.

G1 Treat everyone with respect. All Students and adults associated with a Team are expected to conduct themselves in a respectful and positive manner while participating in the VEX IQ Challenge. If Team members are disrespectful or uncivil to staff, volunteers, or fellow teams at an event, the team may be Disqualified from their current or upcoming Match. Judges may also consider team conduct and ethics when determining awards.

In all aspects of the VEX IQ Challenge program, the Students make the decisions and do the work with adult mentorship. The VEX community prides itself on being a positive learning environment where no one is bullied, harassed, or berated. Teams avoid placing unnecessary stress upon students and/or event volunteers; instead, challenging situations are viewed as teachable moments to model positive behaviors and good sportsmanship.

This rule exists alongside the REC Foundation Code of Conduct. Violation of the Code of Conduct can be considered a violation of <G1> and can result in Disqualification from a current Match, an upcoming Match, an entire event, or (in extreme cases) an entire competition season. The Code of Conduct can be found at http://link.roboticseducation.org/recf_codeofconduct.

G2 VEX IQ is a student-centered program. Adults may assist Students in urgent situations, but adults should never work on or program a Robot without Students on that Team being present and actively participating.

> Some amount of adult mentorship, teaching, and/or guidance is an expected and encouraged facet of the VEX IQ Challenge. No one is born an expert in robotics! However, obstacles should always be viewed as teaching opportunities, not tasks for an adult to solve without Students present and actively participating. > > When a mechanism falls off, it is… > …okay for an adult to help a Student investigate why it failed, so it can be improved. > …not okay for an adult to put the robot back together. > > When a team encounters a complex programming concept, it is…> > …okay for an adult to guide a Student through a flowchart to understand its logic. > …not okay for an adult to write a pre-made command for that Student to reference.

G3 Use common sense. When reading and applying the various rules in this document, please remember that common sense always applies in the VEX IQ Challenge.

We want to go to a local tournament for V5. However we are unsure if our mentor can make it. Is it possible for teams to compete without their main mentor present?

I am wondering if a team respectfully calling out a penalty that is not being called by the refs is a violation of G1. What is the preferred method of letting a ref know that a team is committing a penalty?<G1>

Hello

Will the game manual be published in a Spanish edition like in Change Up?

Thanks

<G1>

Step 231 uses 1/2" screws to connect the net to the field perimeter wall. However, there is no way for the screws to stay put. I have looked throughout the assembly manual to make sure I didn't miss anything. I have looked through the holes in the perimeter walls to confirm my thinking that there is nothing inside to attach to. Even poked a screwdriver all the way through. I'm wondering what the fix was? I can't find anything online yet. I want to maintain legality of the field for competition purposes.

<G1> During multiple events, we have witnessed teams capable of doing all dispensers and as such asked their teammate to sit and let them run the whole match. It is even noted in this QA, https://events.vex.com/VIQC/2022-2023/QA/1456 As it is noted that the QA and Game Manual are the only official documentation for rules, the explanation of G1 was sent in an email In an email from Dan Mantz, that not everyone has received, he stated:

Does this mean, if a team does all 5 dispensers and their alliance partner does nothing, they are disqualified? If this is true, then this will lead to several situations:

If a team does all 5 dispensers, and their alliance partner moves, but does no real input, are they also disqualified? If a team does all 5 dispensers, and their alliance partner's only contribution is expansion, is that enough contribution to not be disqualified?

Or is the disqualification the act of attitude, where teams begrudgingly agreed to stay in the corner? If so is it possible that a team agrees that to do nothing, as their robot might be in repair or they feel that they will not be able to properly contribute, so there should be no disqualification? How will the head referee determine which it is, or will it be a case by case basis?

Our team won the championship of team cooperation in the Asian Championships, but the quota recently issued was not ours. Officially, it was a mistake, but it affected us. How do we think the organizing committee would react to this situation

<G1>We are seeing an issue with this year's game. There are teams that can clear all the dispensers, shoot them into the zones, and score the bonus all by themselves. They are paired with teams at tournaments that can only do one or two things like empty the yellow dispenser onto the field. The teams are coming up with a "strategy" for the advanced robot to clear the field while the other one stays out of the way and gets any disks that fall out. Event volunteers, parents, and even event partners are filing complaints against these teams for not letting the other team participate. Many times by them "participating" it will significantly lower the score. What can be done about this beside a game design that does not allow one robot to do everything?<G1>

<G3><G1><G1><G1><G2><RSC1>Our ri<T1>ght side of our controller is not working even though we have fixed our programing several times and it works but the second we turn off our robot and turn it back on it stops working.

I have been hearing about teams attempting to intentionally violate <SG8> in order to guarantee that their disks get scored in the high goal so that they can earn the autonomous win-point from <SC6>. From my perspective as a referee and others that I talked with, this is a blatant disregard for the rules and Code of Conduct and would constitute a <G1> violation if it occurs multiple times at a singular competition. Teams are entitled to a warning for the first offense in this scenario as is the ruling with anything pertaining to <G1>.

For example: In match 1, Team 1234A (Red) scores both rollers on its side to Red in autonomous, then it drives across the lines to line up along the blue barrier to guarantee that it makes its shot of two disks into the high goal. Blue wins autonomous due to Red crossing the line, but Red gets the win-point. The head referee notes this down in the match anomaly log. In match 4, Team 1234A (Blue) does the exact same strategy. This shows that it is intentional because it happened twice, even for different sides of the field. The team is given a "final warning" per <G1> for intentionally violating the rules. In match 8, Team 1234A (Blue) does the exact same strategy again. At the end of the match they receive a DQ per <G1>. In match 15, Team 1234A (Red) does the exact same strategy again. At the end of the match they are DQ'ed from the competition per <G1>.

Is this an appropriate response to seeing this strategy applied or should no action be taken as it also benefits the opposing alliance who would win autonomous each time this occurs? I am only asking for if it is the exact same strategy or a very similar one due to the many different causes that may occur and have a robot cross over the autonomous line unintentionally.

Is something going to be changed in the rules for <SC6> so that if you cross the autonomous line and violate <SG8> that you cannot earn the autonomous win-point?

Thanks for your time,

"Cowboy" Chris