Q&A

G4 shows the pre-match setup rules as follows:

<G4> Pre-Match setup. At the beginning of a Match, each Robot must meet the following criteria:

1. Only be contacting the Floor and / or the Field perimeter (i.e. not contacting any Balls, other Field Elements, or other Robots).

2. Fit within an 11” x 19” (279.4mm x 482.6mm) area, bounded by one of the Starting Positions.

3. Be no taller than 15” from the Floor.

   There is no mention of motor run status in this rule, based on this absence, can you please confirm that a motor is allowed to spin pre-match as long as the full text of G4 is otherwise followed? Examples included 'spinning up' a ball collector, flywheel, conveyor belt, etc.

Our question is regarding the starting positions of the robots in Teamwork Matches. We are an event partner and many teams were asking about starting positions for their robot. In the game manual, It does address robot starting positions for Live Remote Matches in rule <LRT6> along with figure 23. But there is no such rule for on-site teamwork matches. The only documentation that addresses starting positions is on page 8 of the game manual (Starting Position) where the Figure 17 shows 2 robots on opposite sides of the field, but the actual wording doesn't state that robots must start on opposite sides of the field. Thus, the item in question is whether alliances can start both robots on the same side of the field. Thank you!

Robots must begin Live Remote Matches, in one of the highlighted Starting Positions depicted below. In addition, only one Robot from the Alliance may start on a given side of the field, as shown in Figure 23; i.e. one Robot must start on the “audience side”, and one Robot must start on the “Driver Station side”

I am looking for confirmation on how we are reading the definition of "Starting Position" and <G4> Pre-Match setup, at the beginning of a match. "Any one of the designated 11x19" volumes of the field where robots must start the match." No mention, in the definition or in <G4>, is made about robots needing to be on opposite sides or opposite halves (divided by the Low Bar).

The confusion is that all images of robots in starting positions in the game manual show the two teamwork robots starting along opposite long sides and on different sides (not on the same side of Low Bar). We believe that the images are NOT to be interpreted as a requirement or limitation for where each team may choose to start the match.

Meaning, let us consider Starting Positions to be named #1 - #8. If Team #1 chooses to setup their robot in Spot #1, Team #2 could choose to setup their robot in any of the other 7 "Starting Position"(s), including the spot that may be adjacent to Spot #1 where Robot #1 choose to start.

Is this reading of the rules correct?

Our team has noticed after working on some Autonomous Programs that the tall Neutral Middle Goal placement is different from several Vex posted sites. Please clarify the placement and orientation and which document is authoritative.

I'm also an EP and we are hosting an event on Oct 23. I already have printed field reset papers for volunteers using the light gray with foam tiles lines shown on the bottom right side of the image attached. Just wanted to note that this image is easier to follow for volunteers to decide the correct placement.

Can the robot height be more than 15 inches? or is it just at the start at 15 and then can extend further when match begins?

This question was asked and answered, but I need some clarification please.

"G4 839A 2 weeks ago Rule G4 Pre-match setup states that at the beginning of a Match, each Robot must meet the following criteria: 1. Only be contacting the Floor and/or the field perimeter; 2. Fit within an 11” x 19” (279.4mm x 482.6mm) area, bounded by the Starting Positions; 3. Be no taller than 15” from the Floor. Rule R5 restates similar conditions. Rule RSC1 states standard rules apply in most cases. All rules and scoring from previous sections apply to the Skills Matches, unless otherwise specified.

Our understanding of these rules are that the robot must fit within the dimensions specified above at the start of each match in one of the 2 designated starting positions. There are no other rules that states otherwise for autonomous skills matches. However, we were asked to change our autonomous skills routine during our last competition by one of the judges as they stated the robot must fit within the starting dimensions every time we launch a new routine in the starting area. Please clarify if we correctly interpreted that the starting dimensions applies to only the first launch at the beginning of an autonomous skills run or if it in fact applies to all subsequent launches in the starting position.

Answered by Game Design Committee Our understanding of these rules are that the robot must fit within the dimensions specified above at the start of each match in one of the 2 designated starting positions. There are no other rules that states otherwise for autonomous skills matches.

This interpretation is correct.

<RSC7> Handling Robots during a Programming Skills Match. A Team may handle their Robot as many times as desired during a Programming Skills Match. a. Upon handling the Robot, it must be immediately brought back to any legal Starting Position. i. Drivers may reset or adjust the Robot as desired from this position, including pressing buttons on the Robot Brain or activating sensors.

My clarification question; When a team returns their robot to a starting position during a programming skills run, do they have to return it to the 19X11X15 size every time they reset the robot? Or do they have to just have it be the 9X11X15 size the first time they are in the starting position at the start of the match? If they do not have to return to the 19X11X15 size, are all of these positions (A-D, see image) legal when resetting the robot during a robot skills match?

Relevant rule segments: <G4> Using Field Element, such as the field perimeter wall, to maintain starting size is only acceptable if the Robot would still satisfy the constraints of <R5> and pass inspection without the Field Element.

<R5> Robots must fit in a sizing box. At the beginning of any Match, Robots must be smaller than 18” (457.2 mm) long by 18” (457.2 mm) wide by 18” (457.2 mm) tall. a. Robots may expand beyond their starting size constraints after the start of a Match. b. Any restraints used to maintain starting size (i.e. zip ties, rubber bands, etc.) MUST remain attached to the Robot for the duration of the Match.

Would it be a correct interpretation of G4 to allow: A robot mechanism that needs the field perimeter to stay within the size constraints but can be temporarily constrained for inspection purposes with a mechanism assuming the mechanism will not be in place during a match. The temporary mechanism in this case would still be attached to the robot but not engaged at the beginning of the match, as the field perimeter would be holding the robot in size.

I have a question about the starting position in the VEX IQ skill challenge. During the program skill challenge, If my robot start in the position below, is it legal? The driving base is within the starting position, the arm is longer, but not touching the the cube.

<G4> Robots begin the Match in the starting volume. At the beginning of a Match, each Robot must be smaller than a volume of 18” (457.2 mm) long by 18” (457.2 mm) wide by 18” (457.2 mm) tall. Using Field Elements, such as the field perimeter wall, to maintain starting size is only acceptable if the Robot would still satisfy the constraints of and pass inspection without the Field Element. Robots in violation of this limit will be removed from the field prior to the start of the Match, at the Head Referee’s discretion.

<R4> Robots must fit in a sizing box. At the beginning of any Match, Robots must be smaller than 18” (457.2 mm) long by 18” (457.2 mm) wide by 18” (457.2 mm) tall.

Q&A 439 https://events.vex.com/VRC/2019-2020/QA/439 Q&A 423 https://events.vex.com/VRC/2019-2020/QA/423

Although you have answered questions about starting size in the past (see q&a's listed above), we are still a bit confused on the legality of the situations drawn below.

A & B: The robot itself is in size, but the preload is out of 18” (length wise)

C : The robot itself is out of size (height wise because of its tray), while the preload is inside of the robot

We are mainly concerned with this: if you were to put the preload into your robot and by doing so it forces a section of your robot out of the 18"x18"x18" size (as seen in scenario C where the tray was forced outside by the preload), would that be a legal starting position. If you could clarify which starting positions are considered legal that would be very helpful. Thank you!

at a previous event we ran into an issue where a robot had passed inspection, and after competing all day, the robot was over sized, it was minimal, but still over sized. during the elimination rounds a sizing inspection was requested. So, how should this handled Is the robot DQ'd Per R2e, or as discussed in R2d, the robot sits out, until it can be fixed. R2e states "During" the match. this was caught before match started.

G4 States: Robots in violation of this limit will be removed from the field prior to the start of the Match, at the Head Referee’s discretion. This is what was done. But during elimination match if it is a DQ, then the whole alliance is DQ'd.

Good evening,

I have a question regarding the preload and how it may affect sizing at the beginning of the match. While reading R4 and G4, the rules state that the robot must be in the 18x18x18 constraint at the beginning of the match without mention of the preload. In Virginia tournaments, however, teams who are resized on the field are allowed to remove their preload and be measured. Is it legal for the robot itself to be out of size with the preload in the robot in the beginning of the match?

Thank you, Korvex Robotics

If i made a CAD model of a concept robot that is made up of sample mechanisms. And sell it to teams for inspiration to help them see what a concept could look like, would this be allowed.

<G4>

The Judge Advisor and I keep going back and forth as to whether or not using the Hero Bot with no modifications to it should be a violation or not during inspection.

Rule G4, part C states: Teams may use Robot plans and code (e.g., the annual Hero Bot, VEXcode configurations, etc.) provided by VEX Robotics or the RECF, but are encouraged to use these Robots, mechanisms, and code only as a starting point that Students modify, improve, or replace as their skills increase. Plans provided by VEX Robotics or the RECF are the only legal plans available for use in competition.

Would a team be in violation if they were to build a Hero Bot with no modifications? I would say yes that it is a violation if you're just copying the robot and not making it your own. Just removing the sensors from the Hero Bot shows that it's no longer an exact copy.

Rule G4 part C suggests that teams can use the Hero Bot as a starting point. It seems that if teams are struggling to come up with a design, here's a design to get you started. The rule continues to say "that Students modify, improve, or replace as their skills increase," which seems that students should modify the robot to make it their own.

The other parts of Rule G4 state the following: Part A: Teams must avoid academic dishonesty and should not copy a Robot or mechanism that has been provided for them. Part B i and ii: Mentions that Using elements of another design as a starting point is acceptable as long as the team makes the design uniquely their own or else it will be in violation.

The Hero Bot is provided by VEX Robotics or the RECF, and so these are legal plans available for use in competition. Does copying the Hero Bot override everything else that's said about copying a robots design stated in Rule G4 part A and B?

Any clarification/thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

I use the term "hole count" to mean "create an exact duplicate of a Mechanism, groups of Mechanisms, up to and including the entire Robot. "

Settled law says that teams may hole count any prior VEX IQ herobot designs. (i.e Huey, Allie, Clawbots, etc.) See G4.c

The VEX HEXBUG Robotics line uses VEX IQ parts and were created by VEX engineers. (Or IQ uses HEXBUG parts) Some of these parts are not part of the bundled Education or Competition kits or not sold as a separate SKU. They are in the allowed parts list. The HEXBUG kits come with instructions on how to use those parts. (Kits range from the simple like the road racer, to the complex like the Off Road Vehicle. )

Since those instructions / designs also come from VEX are those designs allowed to be hole counted? Can you elaborate on how you got to the answer.

<G4>

With the update of the G4 rule on 12/4/25, it says to reference the RECF document on student centered and non- student centered examples for further clarification of G4 violations. As we read through this, it says that "Students should be able to understand and explain the code, and students should be able to demonstrate that they can program on a level equivalent to the code used in their mechanism." It also states, "Students that use publicly available custom libraries or functions are also capable of creating their own custom libraries and functions." Now when we read through the the non-student centered examples, it states "Students are unable to explain the code functionality or development without a mentor’s assistance", and "Students use a publicly available custom library developed by another team, but cannot create their own custom libraries".

Our question is this, if a team uses a public library like Lemlib or other libraries and can create their own libraries, are they in violation of G4? If a student uses Lemlib as a starting point, but then builds off of it or is able to explain it's use in detail, are they safe? We are needing a little more clarification as to what is being looked or is expected from teams within their code. There are a lot of teams that use Lemlib or other libraries around the world and we feel that the current explaination is confusing/contradictory. Referencing Q and A 2823, it says that students should be able to 'explain' but in the RECF reference document is seems contradictory. Can we get more clarification?

123A and 321A are on the same alliance during a match. During the driver control period, a drive team member from 123A is handed a controller for 321A's robot.

1. Can alliances intentionally swap controllers with their alliance partner during the driver control period?
2. If no, which rules would apply in this scenario?

Thank you for your time.

<G4><G4>Hello GDC,

I would like to request clarification regarding how <G4> should be applied when evaluating Teams that use publicly available mechanisms (e.g., “meta-bots,” common 180-degree swing arms, etc.) as inspiration.

Specifically:

What level of iteration or modification is required for a mechanism to be considered a “unique design” under <G4>? For example, if a Team cites their source properly and can explain their design process, is modifying elements such as arm length, gear ratio, structure layout, or grip geometry sufficient to demonstrate meaningful iteration?

Would the use of a common swing-arm mechanism automatically violate <G4>, even if the Team documents inspiration and can defend their modifications? Our Head Referee is concerned that these designs may be “above the students’ skill level,” and is considering disallowing all versions of the 180-degree swing mechanism—even those with documented student-driven changes. I would appreciate guidance on whether this interpretation aligns with the intent of <G4>.

Regarding exact or near-exact copies: At what point do small changes (e.g., adjusting grip shape, modifying gears, or changing lengths) become meaningful enough to avoid being considered a direct copy?

Our goal is to apply <G4> consistently and fairly while ensuring students are encouraged to innovate rather than discouraged from using publicly known mechanisms as starting points, as long as they can defend their work.

Thank you for your clarification.

Best regards,

(This is a hypothetical situation, this is not a real team or people) This question is asked by us because as the season ramps up we see teams often have members that occasionally may have to miss competition.

Imagine team 1234A, who has a extremely advanced positioning algorithm that uses a wide variety of sensors, and does complex calculations in code to estimate values. This is the Schrödinger location system. 1234A has 4 members Alice-Driver Bailey-Builder Carson-Coder Dom-Designer

Scenario 1: Team 1234A is at a event, but only Alice and Bailey are at the competition (Carson and Dom are unable to attend maybe due to travel, sickness, etc). A judge, referee or other event staff raises concerns representing the programming of the robot representing their skill level. Team 1234A does not have a notebook (various reasons). Person A and B have zero understanding of the programming systems used, and maybe know that the Schrödinger location system allows them to locate the robot on the field, however cannot defend the code they have.

Scenario 2: Team 1234A is at a event, but only Alice and Bailey are at the competition (Carson and Dom are unable to attend maybe due to travel, sickness, etc). A judge, referee or other event staff raises concerns representing the programming of the robot representing their skill level. Team 1234A does have a notebook Bailey wrote that in great detail explains the Schrödinger location system, reasons behind its implementation, and the iterations of the software. (Basically without any doubt we can assume Carson designed and implemented said software without any outside help.) Person A and B have zero understanding of the programming systems used, and maybe know that the Schrödinger location system allows them to locate the robot on the field, however cannot defend the code they have.

For this Q and A, lets assume that there is no other evidence of Carson coding the Schrödinger location system besides the notebook in scenario 2, and scenario 1, the judges just have to believe Alice and Bailey, but Carson is on the team roster without a question.

Would Scenario 1 or 2 be a violation of <G4> given the rest of the robot is explained properly except coding?

What if 1 or more other sections, Dom's design maybe cannot be explained? Is it then a <G4>.

What would the reprecussions for violating <G4> in this case be, would they still be allowed to compete given benefit of the doubt?

<G4><G5><G4>

This is a followup to https://events.vex.com/V5RC/2025-2026/QA/2834

In part, the GDC's answer includes the following quote, which seems entirely unsatisfying given the potential consequences up to and including removal from the program, where the burden of proof falls on the team to defend themselves.

Neither the game manual nor the GDC provide guidelines for what should be included in a Team’s engineering notebook, should they choose to use one. We recommend that Teams review the related content in the RECF Library, including the pertinent portions of the RECF Guide to Judging.

In response to one scenario that I posted:

A team "hole counts" a mechanism based on YouTube content. The mechanism is made entirely of Vex-branded parts and is identical to the YouTube version.

The GDC's response was:

This would be a clear violation of rule <G4> clause B that could lead to penalties up to and including removal from the program if recognized by or reported to event staff.

If the team had an Engineering Notebook and in that notebook the team describe finding the video, building it, creating various iterations, before concluding that the original version (the copy of the YouTube implementation) is optimal, would that be sufficient to overcom G4.2.i

Using elements of another design as a starting point is acceptable if the Team is capable of demonstrating evidence of iteration, innovation, and/or modification that makes the design uniquely their own. Documentation should clearly demonstrate the idea that was used for inspiration, and how it was changed for the final implementation on the Team’s Robot. It should be clear that this final implementation is not an exact copy of ANY other original design.

Especially given that there are only so many permutations of reasonably combining Vex parts?

Replace "mechanism" from the original question to "drivetrain", where there seem to be a limited number of reasonable drivetrain choices. Are all teams at risk of program removal if their drivetrain is an exact copy of some other popular drivetrain?

Based on Q and A 2812, students cannot directly copy mechanisms that another team built. However, what happens to the “ownership” of the idea if a team splits legally per rule G5. Here is the following hypothetical scenario.

Amy and Bob are both on team 123A early on in the season. Together, they work together to develop the “Schrödinger” mech. Partway through the season, Bob leaves 123A to join team 123B for a legal reason described in rule G5A. Both Amy and Bob have an equal and complete understanding of the “Schrödinger” mech as per rule G5Aiii. In order to document their ideas, both teams will put all of their evidence in a physical digital engineering notebook. It should be assumed for this Q and A that the only documentation these teams have is located in their notebook. Which of the following scenarios, if any, would constitute a G4 violation?

Bob (on team 123B) builds an identical copy of the “Schrödinger” mech. Bob does this using pictures/cad drawings he took/made of the “Schrödinger” mech while still on team 123A. Both team 123A and 123B now have identical mechanisms on their robot.

a. Is this a G4 violation for either team?

b. If Bob were to recreate the “Schrödinger” mech from pictures/cad drawings that Amy took/made would this affect the legality

c. Does the answer to question B change depending on whether or not Amy or Bob wrote the entries/provided the documentation?

d. If scenario A is legal, does Bob need to provide any additional documentation in 123B’s notebook about the documentation and development of the “Schrödinger” mech or is the documentation in team 123A’s notebook sufficient?

e. If team answer to part D is that Bob does not need additional documentation of the “Schrödinger” mech, what happens if 123A forgets to bring their notebook to a competition and it is not present?

f. If the answer to part A is that this is not a G4 violation, but the answer to part C is that Bob does need additional documentation in 123B’s notebook, could 123A now potentially face a G4 violation if 123A doesn’t have complete documentation of the “schrödinger mech” but 123B does?

g. Do any of the above answers change if the number of students involved change? Such as if 123A originally had Amy, Bob, and Bill and both Bob and Bill left to make a new team.

Thank you for your time answering these detailed questions. Additionally, please let me know if you need any further clarification on any of the scenarios.

<G4>