Q&A

Now with the releasing of the all gray anti static tiles, does that mean now we can introduce match loads on the previous colored tiles?

https://events.vex.com/VEXU/2019-2020/QA/412

In this QA it was ruled that match loads cannot be introduced onto colored tiles.

<SG4> Match Load entry. Drive Team Members may introduce Match Loads during the Driver Controlled Period by placing them gently onto a gray foam field tile such that they satisfy the following conditions: a. Contacting the field perimeter wall on the side that coincides with their Alliance’s Goal Zones and Alliance Station.

b. Contacting the gray foam field tiles.

c. Not contacting a Tower.

d. Not contacting any Cubes besides another Match Load.

e. Not contacting a Goal Zone or a Barrier.

f. Not contacting a Robot.

SG4 b. specifies match loads are required to be introduced onto GRAY foam tiles. The VRC Tower Takeover - Referee Training - Chapter 8: Cube Do’s & Don’ts, at 1:22, it gives the thumbs up and a green check for match loads being introduced on a BLUE tile ( https://youtu.be/ksrIJ1_rdv0?t=80 ).

Are teams not allowed to introduce match loads onto red and blue foam field tiles? If they are restricted from those tiles, can you clarify that teams ARE allowed to introduce match loads onto their alliance's inner protected zone gray foam tile (providing the cubes satisfy SG4 and specifically aren't touching a barrier or goal zone)?

<SG4> Match Load entry. Drive Team Members may introduce Match Loads during the Driver Controlled Period by placing them gently onto a gray foam field tile such that they satisfy the following conditions: a. Contacting the field perimeter wall on the side that coincides with their Alliance’s Goal Zones and Alliance Station. b. Contacting the gray foam field tiles. c. Not contacting a Tower. d. Not contacting any Cubes besides another Match Load. e. Not contacting a Goal Zone or a Barrier. f. Not contacting a Robot.

If the Bean Bag rests against the Field Perimeter after being loaded, but does not exceed the outer edge of the Perimeter, is this loading operation valid?

QA3177 only say IQ pieces.

<SG4>

When preparing to referee/score-keep a scrimmage recently, I came across a particular scenario regarding clause A of <SG4>. The first sentence of Clause A states:

If a Scoring Object is leaving the Field (as determined by the Head Referee), but is deflected back into the Field by a Drive Team Member, field monitor, ceiling/wall, or other external factor, it should still be considered "out of the Field" and removed by a Scorekeeper Referee or Head Referee.

My question regarding this clause is if the game element in question does indeed leave the field, as determined by the Head Referee, and is deflected back into the field via an external factor, but comes to rest in a hard to reach area such as close to or within the midfield (emphasis mine):

A) Are the Scorekeepers or Head Referee still expected to reach into the field during a match to attempt to remove the game element and reintroduce it back as described in main body of <SG4>?

B) If Yes to A, then how would this be applied to raised fields where mobility to reach into the field is already extremely limited to roughly the first tile or two from the perimeter wall?

C) If No to A, since the objective of the game does not involve any form of tossing or launching of the game elements, would this be left as a Minor/Major Violation ruling based on the listed violation notes and/or a violation of <GG4>, Hands out of the Field, as listed in the latter sentence of Clause A?

I would appreciate the GDCs clarification in proceeding given such a scenario. Thank you!

There are multiple vague scenarios as follows:

Scenario 8:

Bean Bag D is partially stacked on Bean Bag C and is in contact with the L2 PET sheet.

Bean Bag C is stacked on top of Bean Bag B (a blue Bean Bag), which is stacked on top of Bean Bag A. Bean Bag A is in contact with the L1 PET sheet. All four Bean Bags meet all criteria listed in <SC4>.

What is the scoring status of Bean Bag A, Bean Bag B, Bean Bag C, and Bean Bag D?

Scenario 9:

Similar to Scenario 8, except Bean Bag A is a blue Bean Bag and Bean Bag B is a red Bean Bag. All four Bean Bags meet all criteria listed in <SC4>.

What is the scoring status of Bean Bag A, Bean Bag B, Bean Bag C, and Bean Bag D?

Scenario 10:

The PET sheet is flexible. Bean Bag A is stuck inside the Goal and is contacting the horizontal PET sheet that defines the L1 Goal.

What is the scoring status of Bean Bag A?

Scenario 11:

Bean Bag D is resting on the L2 PET sheet and is slightly contacting Bean Bag C.

Bean Bag C is stacked on top of Bean Bag B, which is stacked on top of Bean Bag A. Bean Bag A is in contact with the L1 PET sheet. All four Bean Bags meet all criteria listed in <SC4>.

What is the scoring status of Bean Bag A, Bean Bag B, Bean Bag C, and Bean Bag D?

Furthermore, if Bean Bag D is gradually pushed toward Bean Bag C while still slightly contacting the L2 PET sheet — at what point does the scoring status of Bean Bag D change?

<SG4>

Rule SG4 states " Scoring Objects that leave the Field during a Match may be reintroduced by a Loader in accordance with <SG6>". Since it doesn't state anywhere that I can find, the referee replaces objects that leave the field back in their original position, my students believe that if their robot knocks the starting pin off it's holder and it falls onto the floor instead of into the field, it will still count as "Starting pin cleared."

Is that correct?

Per <SG4a>:

If a Block is leaving the Field (as determined by the Head Referee), but is deflected back into the field by a Drive Team Member, field monitor, ceiling/wall, or other external factor, it should still be considered “out of the field” and removed by a scorekeeper or Head Referee...

I could envision a block being deflected by an external factor, returning to the field in a spot that is unsafe/impractical to be retrieved by a referee during the match. While this could be rare, what are the GDC's recommendations for handling these deflected blocks? I.e., a block ended up near the center of the field, and retrieval would interfere with the match.

Thanks!

<SG4>

If during autonomous a block were to launch out of the top of the loader and land on top the plastic field perimeter and stay. Is that block considered inside the field or outside the field?

If this were to happen during driver control would the answer be different?

Can a team member retrieve the block from the top of the field and use it?

Obviously if it is considered outside the field then during auton it would be a GG13 violation.

Also if it is a violation then it counts as a block leaving the field for any and all SG4 violations in that match.

The violation notes for <SG4> state that "After a Team’s third Match with any Violation of this rule (either Major or Minor), all subsequent Violations of this rule will immediately escalate to a Major Violation."

"Match" is defined to include both the Autonomous Period and the Driver Control period. Therefore, it seems that a block leaving the field during autonomous would result in a violation that counts toward the total number of matches with a violation of <SG4>.

However, the violation note to <GG13> explains that "In general, Minor Violations of SG rules that occur during the Autonomous Period should only affect the outcome of the Autonomous Period (i.e., the Alliance can’t win the Autonomous Bonus or earn an Autonomous Win Point) and should not be considered when determining whether a Violation has been repeated during the event."

Should a violation of <SG4> in autonomous be logged so that it counts toward the total number of matches with an <SG4> violation, or should it only result in the loss of autonomous?

<RSC1> says: a. Removing Blocks from the Field in a Robot Skills Match is not a Violation. Blocks that leave the Field cannot be returned.

<RSC2> provides that: d. The Team will earn points for a cleared Loader if no Blocks are within that Loader at the end of the Match.

If a team during skills autonomous/driving hits the bottom of the loader and a block leaves the field from the top of the loader, and the team then clears the loader, the violation of <SG4> would be score affecting, as the block leaving the field from the top of the loader contributed to clearing the Loader. However, <RSC1> says there is no violation for the block leaving the field.

In this scenario, should the score be zero, or should the team get the points for the loader being cleared?

<SG4> Keep Blocks in the Field. Teams may not remove Blocks from the Field. A Block that leaves the field during Match play, intentionally or unintentionally, will be given to a Drive Team Member from the same color Alliance as the Block...

Using stored event items from Over Under, many EPs will likely use bins to store match load Blocks this year. In regard to <SG4> specifying a Drive Team Member will receive a block that has left the field, I have the following questions,

1. Can the Block be placed or tossed into a bin in a manner that is not reckless instead of directly handing the Block to a student?

2. If yes to question 1, must scorekeepers and other volunteers attempt to return Blocks in the same manner at an event or can they randomly (in terms of Drive Team Member expectations, they do not know what to expect) choose the manner they return Blocks?

3. If the first option is the answer to question 2, must scorekeepers be consistent with their method such that students have to be ready for whatever an event decides as their manner and cannot ask for the opposite or special instructions (if it is somehow possible to clarify beyond bin or hand) for receiving Blocks?

4. Applying <G3> and context of the full match, can the delay or an inconsistent manner of receiving a Block that left the field ever be deemed score affecting?

5. Does question 4 apply differently based on which alliance caused if the Block(s) in question to leve the field?

6. If yes to question 4, is the score affecting threshold of a match 3 points (as <SG9>'s violation notes value one Block), 13 points (the maximum amount of points a scored Block and a controlled zone can accumulate to), or the next highest accumulated points total given the full context of the match?

<SG4> states, in part (emphasis mine):

Teams may not intentionally or strategically remove Blocks from the Field. A Block that leaves the field during Match play, intentionally or unintentionally, will be given to a Drive Team Member from the same color Alliance as the Block and may be used as a Match Load in accordance with SG9. Violation Note 1: After a Team’s third Match with any Violation of this rule (either Major or Minor), all subsequent Violations of this rule will immediately escalate to a Major Violation. Violation Note 2: Any Team that removes three (3) or more Blocks from the Field in a single Match will receive a Major Violation.

Scenario: A Robot is attempting to remove Blocks from a full Loader with 6 Blocks in it. As the Robot extends into the Loader to retrieve Blocks, one or more of the Blocks near the top of the Loader pop up and fall out of the Field. An example of this scenario occurs at approximately 2:38:35 of this video at the bottom-left Loader of the screen: https://www.youtube.com/live/tgUlpMw_tzA?si=Z5zzyf_2M77x6t07

Which, if any, of the following outcomes would be appropriate for this scenario with respect to SG4 Violation Note 1?

• Since the Robot is attempting to retrieve Blocks from the bottom of the Loader, the Blocks exiting the top of the Loader out of the Field is an unintentional action. Since the first sentence of SG4 prohibits intentional or strategic Block removal, this scenario should not result in a Major or Minor Violation counted towards the 3 Matches before a Major Violation.
• The actions of the Robot caused the Block to exit the Field, so this action should be considered intentional and result in a Minor Violation that counts towards the 3 Matches before a Major Violation.
• Would some other scenario apply? Would the color of the Robot and the Block being removed matter? SG4 does not specify Block color, so I would assume no, but would appreciate confirmation.

Which, if any, of the following outcomes would be appropriate for this scenario with respect to SG4 Violation Note 2?

• If the Block is ruled to be unintentionally leaving the field, the Block should not count towards one of the 3 in a Match before a Major Violation is issued.
• Violation Note 2 does not differentiate between intentional and unintentional removal of Blocks from the Field, so any Block removed in a Match should count towards the 3 that would result in a Major Violation.
• Would some other scenario apply? Would the color of the Robot and the Block being removed matter?

Thank you for your time!

Once a ball legally enters the loading station and passes through it does the robot have to retrieve ball from the load zone itself, or can it be loaded in a way that bypasses the load zone and enters the field directly -similar to a spin entry? According to the Q&A, the ball does not need to make contact with the load zone floor <SG4>

How are we handling illegally loaded balls in the finals matches.

SG4 Says that it is head ref discretion. So I guess my question is: How can all of the head refs be consistent in the finals with Disqualifications and calls for things such as starting early, switching late, and illegally loaded balls.

During a recent competition, a question came up that we couldn't answer. If a ball is improperly loaded, following rule SG4, it states in part e: "The Ball must then be removed from the Load Zone by a Loader before it is retrieved by a Robot and legally Loaded again.". The question came up of what should be the recommended course of action if it is retrieved by a robot. From our understanding, if the ball is scored in anyway (a goal or a pass), that is score affecting, then the team or teams involved should be disqualified. But, what if it isn't. Can the team rectify the situation?

A. Can the team remove the ball from their robot? Would that require a full robot reset?

B. Can the team's robot remove it from itself? By shooting it out or by unloading it? Can the loader then retrieve the ball from the field and have it remain a minor violation?

C. What if the robot shot it outside of the field? Can the loader retrieve it then?

In all three cases, it is assumed the offending ball was not scored in any way.

This is a multi-part question around < SG4 > The Possession limit of balls, and disqualifications.

These questions are related to the "Match Effecting" interpretations of excess ball possession.

< SG4 >Watch your Possession limit. Robots may Possess a maximum of one (1) Cap and two (2) Balls at a time. Note: Robots that interact with High Scored Caps while already Possessing a Cap will undergo additional scrutiny regarding this rule. Minor violations of this rule that do not affect the Match will result in a warning. Match Affecting offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the Head Referee's discretion.

During recent events as the pace of the game has picked up, it has become fairly common for robots to accidentally ingest more than the two-ball possession limit as the balls bounce around and ricochet into the intake mechanisms. At a recent event a team was disqualified for possessing 4 balls at the end of the match that were never used to score. Since the difference in the final score was 4-points and the two extra balls could have been used to score those 4 points the referee called for the disqualification as the possession was match effecting.

Definition: Part 1: Is there a scenario where accidentally possessing 3 or more balls is considered match effecting even if the balls are never used to score a flag? it has been argued that simply possessing excess balls is match effecting since the robot is now controlling balls that are not available for the opposing alliance to score (effectively "hoarding"). Therefore, If the balls in possession have the potential to score points that are equal to, or greater than the match differential, then should this be considered match effecting? (also similar to the point differential when caps that are knocked out of bounds being a match effecting disqualification)

Remediation Options?: Part 2: If simply exceeding the possession limit is not match effecting (i.e. Part 1), is it then permissible for a team announce to the referee that they are have excess capacity and they intend to safely discharge the excess balls in such a way as to not attempt to score? (either through reversing the intake, or if that isn't possible, discharge the excess balls with the launcher directly and safely into the net while avoiding changing the state of any flag)

Part 3: Finally, if a team does score a flag while unintentionally possessing more than 2 balls, could the team: a. announce to the referee they intend to de-score the illegal flag (that is return the scored flag to its previous state) before scoring additional points so as to make the accidental score impossible to affect the match? b. after scoring the flag, announce to the referee they intend to safely discharge all remaining balls in possession before scoring additional points?

This post is for clarification for future occurrences, and in no way trying to modify a previous ruling.

Thank you!

Is the loader allowed to use a something like a beam to influence which way the ball exits the loading station. Example in image:

According to this QA: https://events.vex.com/VIQRC/2024-2025/QA/2428

"Provided the human Loader meets all requirements of rule <SG4>, there is no rule against Loaders attempting to influence the Ball to exit the Loading Station in a particular direction."

And SG4 b. states: "The Loader must be the last human to contact the Ball before it is released."

Is this covered by G9?: "During a Match, Drive Team Members are prohibited from making intentional contact with any Field Element, Robot, or Ball that has been introduced to the Field, except for the allowances in <G10>, <RSC8>, <SG4> and/or <SG6>. "

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

<SG4> states that " blatantly intentional and/or Match Affecting Violations (especially during Elimination Matches) may still immediately escalate to a Major Violation at the Head Referee’s discretion."

My question is how one would categorize an "intentional" violation. In one particular example, a robot is holding a mobile goal and drives directly into the positive corners where 4 rings are currently stacked (as in the initial field setup). They repeatedley back up and drive forward to bash into the rings and make them move. The intention of this robot is to clear the corner of the rings to place their mobile goal.

Should this "bashing corner rings" strategy be considered an intentional violation of <SG4> if one of the rings leave the field?

In this example, the strategy is intentionally trying to remove rings from the corner, but not intentionally trying to remove them from the field per se. How should this be ruled?

<SG4>

As long as the robot doesn't break the plane of the load zone prior to the ball being released, can a robot extract the ball from the loading station before it is 'randomized' into the load zone.

For example, is this legal? https://youtu.be/SNF6m3-aY_U?si=ibUy6luEIcfCgL5A