Q&A

Per the official appeal procedures, only playing Drive Team Members in the Driver Station may appeal a Head Referee's ruling. In a cooperative game like VEX IQ, alliances will naturally never appeal an error that results in over-scoring or extra points.

However, missing or over-counting even one high-value scoring element creates a 12- to 16-point swing. In a typical ~300 point match, this error significantly alters total ranking averages and compromises tournament ranking fairness for all non-playing teams.

Since photo/video reviews are prohibited and non-playing teams cannot initiate an appeal in the Driver Station, how should teams use the proper "chain of command" to address inconsistent scoring standards that inflate tournament rankings? Can a non-playing Drive Team politely discuss these general scoring inconsistencies with the Head Referee between matches?

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>?

Note: This question was revised by the GDC for clarity and readability.

Should the color of the blocks involved in incidents that require the ruling of a head referee be irrelevant in most cases?

Regarding a situation where the offensive and defensive robots are not clear, such that the situation is at this point equally incidental, must the color of the relevant scoring elements be brought into consideration to establish a more offensive than defensive robot for a ruling?

<GG9> Don’t hook your Robot to the Field, and don’t get Entangled. <GG14> Don’t destroy other Robots. <GG15> Offensive Robots get the “benefit of the doubt” when judgment calls are required. <SG10> Don’t reach inside enclosed sections of Goals, and no Goalkeeping. Definition of "Offensive" and "Defensive"

The definition of "Offensive" states that "Changing the status of a Field Element or scoring object that acts as a multiplier or scoring bonus for their Alliance", which I will interpret as attempting to push your Alliance's colored Blocks into the Control Zone for an additional 10 points.

<SG10a> states that "Reaching inside the open top portion of a Goal to affect Blocks within that Goal is an inherently Defensive position, and will not get the benefit of the doubt (<GG15>) if judgment calls are required."

Scenario 1: Red 1 is attempting to push their Blocks into the Control Zone of the Long Goal with their wing/arm mechanism. Blue Alliance currently controls the Control Zone, so Blue 2 is pushing back towards Red 1. During this altercation, Red 1 tips backwards and is rendered unable to move for the rest of the match. Blue Alliance ends up winning the match. What would be the call by the refs here?

Would it be: A. A disqualification for the Blue Alliance, because the attempt to push blocks is an "Offensive" move and will get the benefit of the doubt for <GG15>, and Blue recieves the DQ for <GG14>. B. Neither Alliance will receive disqualifications because Red 1's wing/arm mechanism inside of the Long Goal is an "inherently Defensive" position according to <SG10a>, therefore they will not receive the benefit of the doubt for <GG15>, and Blue does not receive a DQ for <GG14>.

Scenario 2: Red 1 is attempting to push their Blocks into the Control Zone of the Long Goal with their wing/arm mechanism. Blue Alliance currently controls the Control Zone, so Blue 2 is pushing back towards Red 1. During this altercation, Blue 2 tips backwards and is rendered unable to move for the rest of the match. Red Alliance ends up winning the match. What would be the call by the refs here?

Would it be: A. A disqualification for the Red Alliance, because the presence of the wing/arm mechanism inside of the Long Goal is an "inherently Defensive" position according to <SG10a>, and will not get the benefit of the doubt for <GG15>, and Red recieves the DQ for <GG14>. B. Neither Alliance will receive disqualifications because Red 1's wing/arm mechanism inside of the Long Goal is an "Offensive" move and will get the benefit of the doubt for <GG15>, Blue 2's tipping is regarded as regular match play, and Red does not receive a DQ for <GG14>.

GG14 Section B. states “Some incidental tipping, Entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal gameplay without Violation. It will be up to the Head Referee’s discretion whether the interaction was incidental or intentional.”

The violation notes also state “Intentional and/or egregious tipping, Entanglement, or damage may be considered a Major Violation at the Head Referee’s discretion.”

Could the GDC provide some more guidance on how to determine if a tip was egregious or not? Some examples have been provided below:

Scenario 1: red robot drives into blue robot; the blue robot begins to tip over. The red robot continues to push into blue, instead of backing up causing the blue robot to tip over for the remainder of the match. There’s over a minute remaining in the match.

Scenario 2: Same as scenario 1; however there is 30 seconds remaining in the match.

Scenario 3: red and blue collide causing blue to tip over; there was no way for red to back off to prevent the tip. There’s over a minute remaining in the match.

Scenario 4: Same as scenario 3; however there is 30 seconds remaining in the match.

Would any of these scenarios change if the blue robot was able to right-themselves? Would the minor/major violation ruling change if red robot removed themselves from play and did not continue to contribute to a winning match score?

<GG14>[<GG14>] At a competition, a team has entered just a bare chassis, no scoring capabilities. Every match they play, they can only be defensive, however, they are delibertly ramming opposing robots. Slamming into them, backing up and slamming into them again. There is no attempt to get in their way, no attempt at blocking no attempt to move up against them and try to hold them. just ramming over and over again. One offensive robot lost some parts after several deliberate collisions.

How should this be ruled?

-david