Q&A

Relevant rules/definitions:

Hoarding definition:

"A form of Possession. A Robot is Hoarding if it is in Possession of any Mobile Goal in either of the two (2) corners of the field in their own Alliance Home Zone (i.e. positioned in the corner roughly the size of one foam field tile). See SG7 for more information"

SG7:

"Hoarding of Mobile Goals is limited. Robots may not Hoard more than one (1) Mobile Goal at once. The intent of this rule is to prohibit one Alliance from actively stifling gameplay by “locking down” Mobile Goals in corners of the field. Its intent is not to make the corners of the field an area of edge-case accidental violations, just as it is not to prohibit Robots from Possessing multiple Mobile Goals while playing the game offensively. In general, unless a Robot or Alliance is intentionally and blatantly utilizing a Hoarding strategy, violations of this rule should be rare."

Relevant QA: https://events.vex.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/894

Interpretation A: If you hold a mogo in a defensive manner you are hoarding. Meaning if you hold 2 mogos and are stifling gameplay or preventing access to 1 mogo in the corner then you are only hoarding the 1 mogo. To be hoarding you must be preventing access to the mogo from another team. And the defintiion of hoarding only applies to the mogo that is being impacted by the defensive action taken. Meaning if you are hold 1 mogo and shove another in the corner and keep a robot away from it then you are only hoarding 1 mogo. This is based on the clarification of SG7 that

"The intent of this rule is to prohibit one Alliance from actively stifling gameplay by “locking down” Mobile Goals in corners of the field.Its intent is not to make the corners of the field an area of edge-case accidental violations, just as it is not to prohibit Robots from Possessing multiple Mobile Goals while playing the game offensively."

Meaning you must be playing clearly defensively and stifling gameplay and that calling all scenarios where a robot is in a corner possessing mogos would be contradictory to the intent of not wanting a bunch of edge cases or possession limits ("edge case" here refers to edges of the rules not edge cases in terms of infrequent occurrences of the action of being in the corner with mobile goals which happens pretty often) This interpretation means that a robot is only hoarding if it actively "stifles gameplay" (i.e prevents a robot, who is actively trying to get the mogo, from getting access) and that hoarding definition is only to apply to mogos that are being stifled not all mogos in your possession.

Interpretation B: Hoarding is purely posesion based. meaning if I am posessing multiple mogos and in the physical position where it is considered hoarding (corners). QA 894 says that the robot is hoarding more than one mogo and the picture shows it hold 2 mogos and preventing acess to 1 mogo. This means hoarding isnt just about preventing access but purely about posessing in a defensive manner. Posession no matter what is hoarding if its in your corner and you are not clearly trying to score or moving. This interpretation means that a robot is hoarding anytime it possesses mobile goals in the corner and is not moving with them. Also this means that the hoarding definition applies to all mogos Meaning if a robot holds 2 mogos and sits in its corner then it is hoarding those 2 mogos regardless of whether another team is trying to get access to them or not.

1. Which interpretation is correct? or is the correct interpretation somewhere in between?
2. In this video is the red robot in the bottom left hoarding https://youtu.be/ChNwvQ38fg4? If so, how many mogos is it hoarding and how were you able to come to that conclusion? Was it the action of sitting in the corner with the mobile goals and not moving, the action of preventing a robot from getting access to the mobile or something else?

I understand its impossible to issue a blanket statement for all hypotheticals but some guidance for what mental frameworks refs should use in this situation is appreciated.

Thank you

Hello,

The definition of Hoarding is

Hoarding – A form of Possession. A Robot is Hoarding if it is in Possession of any Mobile Goal in either of the two (2) corners of the field in their own Alliance Home Zone (i.e. positioned in the corner roughly the size of one foam field tile).

Emphasis mine.

The definition of Possession is

Possession – A Robot is considered to be in Possession of a Mobile Goal if any one of the following criteria are met:

The Robot is carrying, holding or controlling the movement of a Mobile Goal such that if the Robot changes direction, the Mobile Goal will move with the Robot. Therefore, pushing / plowing Mobile Goals is not considered Possession, however using concave portions of your Robot to control the movement of Mobile Goals is considered Possession. See Figure 18. The Robot is actively blocking opposing Robot’s access to Mobile Goals, such as by expanding horizontally and restricting access to a portion of the field. See Figure 19. Robots on the same Alliance working in tandem to block access to Mobile Goals would share the Possession of said Mobile Goal. See Figure 20.

<SG7> Hoarding of Mobile Goals is limited. Robots may not Hoard more than one (1) Mobile Goal at once.

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.

Note: Hoarding is not a time-based activity (i.e. a 5 second count, like Trapping). As soon as a Robot places multiple Mobile Goals in the corner of an Alliance Home Zone, they are at risk of causing a Hoarding violation.

The intent of this rule is to prohibit one Alliance from actively stifling gameplay by “locking down” Mobile Goals in corners of the field. Its intent is not to make the corners of the field an area of edge-case accidental violations, just as it is not to prohibit Robots from Possessing multiple Mobile Goals while playing the game offensively. In general, unless a Robot or Alliance is intentionally and blatantly utilizing a Hoarding strategy, violations of this rule should be rare.

Additionally, context was added in Q&A 940, https://events.vex.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/940

In order to be considered Hoarding, the Robots in question must be Possessing the Mobile Goals in the "corners" of the field, where "corner" means roughly the size of the one foam field tile. If the Robots / Mobile Goals in question were not in this corner, then they were not meeting the definition of Hoarding, and were therefore not in violation of SG7.

Now my question is about the legality of a strategy implemented by a couple teams around our region which was deemed illegal due to violation of the intent of SG7 due to hoarding. The two teams on an alliance would shove all the neutral goals and their own color goals under their own platform causing the goals to become stuck under the platform, They would then block off access to the portion of the goals that are reachable. Example images of this strategy are attached.

So the questions are

1. If both teams on an alliance are blocking off access to multiple goals (neutral and their own color) by shoving them under their own platform and protecting them from the other alliance, would this by a violation of SG7?

2. If one team on an alliance is blocking off access to multiple goals (neutral and their own color) by shoving them under their own platform and protecting them from the other alliance, would this by a violation of SG7?

3. If both team on an alliance is blocking off access to multiple goals (neutral and their opposing color) by shoving them under their own platform and protecting them from the other alliance, would this by a violation of SG7?

If any of these are no, could you explain why this would not be a violation of the intent of SG7 as they are attempting to stifle game play?

As an Event Partner and a Head Ref, I believe that it is a violation of SG7 as by the intent of locking down game play and because Q&A 940 describes the corners to mean roughly the size of the one foam field tile.

Thank you.

Hoarding, is this a violation of rule SG7 or not. The blue robot is attempting to climb the ramp.

Hello,

The definition of Hoarding is

Hoarding – A form of Possession. A Robot is Hoarding if it is in Possession of any Mobile Goal in either of the two (2) corners of the field in their own Alliance Home Zone (i.e. positioned in the corner roughly the size of one foam field tile).

Emphasis mine.

The definition of Possession is

Possession – A Robot is considered to be in Possession of a Mobile Goal if any one of the following criteria are met:

1. The Robot is carrying, holding or controlling the movement of a Mobile Goal such that if the Robot changes direction, the Mobile Goal will move with the Robot. Therefore, pushing / plowing Mobile Goals is not considered Possession, however using concave portions of your Robot to control the movement of Mobile Goals is considered Possession. See Figure 18.
2. The Robot is actively blocking opposing Robot’s access to Mobile Goals, such as by expanding horizontally and restricting access to a portion of the field. See Figure 19.
3. Robots on the same Alliance working in tandem to block access to Mobile Goals would share the Possession of said Mobile Goal. See Figure 20.

The robot in the image meets all of the definitions for possessing all three of these goals. There is only one goal in the corner, and two are close to the corner (inside the robot).

Does “roughly” one tile mean an extra half a tile in all directions? Or does it mean teams cannot use the corners of the field to defend Mobile Goals?

Thank you for your time!

Hi, just want to ask if there are multiple mobile goals have been placed on the corner of home zone not intendedly for hoarding (such as mobile goals just have been randomly pushed to the corner), and Alliance Robot want to defense the opposing robot to take them away which blocks the opposing robot to approach the mobile goals, does it consider as only possession multiple mobile goals but not hoarding multiple mobile goals? Or it's also a <SG7> hoarding violation?

For example, as the Figure 12, Figure 19 and Figure 20 in the manual shown, the caption said robot is hoarding and also in Possession of both Mobile Goals, but is it also a <SG7> violation?

Thanks.

Other than the Hoarding rule which applies to the corners of a robot's Alliance Home Zone, is there a rule that limits the number of Mobile Goals that a robot may possess?

Would it be legal to score a ball in one of the opponent's home row goals during the autonomous period? Rule that apply: <SG2> The robot itself isn't crossing the autonomous line. <SG3> The ball would not contact the field tiles on the opposing side. <SG7> The balls are being used to "play the game" and would not interfere with the opponents autonomous routine. <G13> This is an offensive strategy, which should get the "benefit of the doubt"

			Thanks #50075 Margaret, Coach

SG3: Keep Balls on your side in Autonomous. Balls that start fully on one side of the Autonomous Line may not contact the foam tiles on the opposite side of the Autonomous Line during the Autonomous Period.

Incidental violations of this rule and have no impact on the opposing Alliance will result in a Warning. Violations of this rule that affect the opposing Alliance’s autonomous routine will result in the Autonomous Bonus being awarded to the opposing Alliance. Examples of affecting the opposing Alliance could include, but are not limited to, a Ball moving another Ball or getting in the path of a Robot.

Note: Balls that start on the Autonomous Line are not included in this rule.

SG7: Use Balls to play the game.Balls may not be used to accomplish actions that would be otherwise illegal if they were attempted by Robot mechanisms (e.g., Interfering with an opponent’s Autonomous Period per <SG2>.)

The final note in SG3 states balls that start on the autonomous line are exempt from SG3. Does this mean robots may use the balls that start on the autonomous line to intentionally interfere with the opposing Alliance’s autonomous routine? Or would this be a violation of SG7?

Hello,

Here are some relevant quotes from the game manual for my question.

SG3 - Stay away from your opponent’s protected areas. Robots may not intentionally or accidentally, directly or indirectly, perform the following actions:

Case E - Contact an opposing Alliance’s Inner Protected Zone. Case E Violation - Any violation of points E, F, or G will result in a Disqualification, whether the interaction was Match Affecting or not.

SG7 - Use Cubes to play the game. Cubes may not be used to accomplish actions that would be otherwise illegal if they were attempted by Robot mechanisms. Examples include (but are not limited to):

• Encroaching upon an opponent’s Protected Zone per <SG3>
• Interfering with an opponent’s Autonomous Period per <SG2>

If a team were to intentionally or accidentally, directly or indirectly, Match Affecting or not cause a cube to enter the opponents Inner Protected Zone (by intaking and it ejecting out of the robot, falling out of a tray/claw, etc.) this would be a violation of SG3-E via SG7 and result in a Disqualification. Is this a correct interpretation?

Thank you for your time.

<SG2> Stay on your side in Autonomous. During the Autonomous Period, Robots may not contact the foam tiles, Towers, or Cubes which are on the opposing Alliance’s side of the Autonomous Line.

Violations of this rule will result in the Autonomous Bonus being awarded to the opposing Alliance. Intentional, strategic, or egregious violations, such as intentional contact with an opposing Robot while completely across the Autonomous Line, will result in a Disqualification.

Note: Towers and Cubes which begin the Match in contact with the Autonomous Line are not considered to be on either side, and may be utilized by either Alliance during the Autonomous Period. If attempting to utilize these Towers or Cubes, Teams should be cognizant of the possibility that opponent Robots may attempt to do the same. <SG7>, <G10>, <G11>, and <G12> will be taken into account when these types of Robot interactions occur.

<SG7> Use Cubes to play the game. Cubes may not be used to accomplish actions that would be otherwise illegal if they were attempted by Robot mechanisms. Examples include (but are not limited to):

• Encroaching upon an opponent’s Protected Zone per <SG3>.

• Interfering with an opponent’s Autonomous Period per <SG2>.

a. According to QA 405, https://events.vex.com/VEXU/2019-2020/QA/405 "violations could range from the Autonomous Bonus being awarded to the opposing Alliance, to a Disqualification, depending on the context of the interaction." Does this mean that if a cube has cross the autonomous line from red into the blue side, either unintentional or intentional, then that red alliance automatically lost autonomous bonus, since the word from is used?

b. If the robot is intaking a neutral cube(started contacting the autonomous line), then the second the robot touched the cube, the robot now has indirectly contacted the foam tile in opposing alliance. According to SG2 Note, cubes "may be utilized by either Alliance during the Autonomous Period." In this case, does this note take precedence over SG2 via SG7?

During the Autonomous period, if a red robot causes a cube from the vertical stack of four to fall while trying to get cubes from that stack and one or more of the cubes in that stack crosses the autonomous line and causes the other vertical blue alliance stack of four to fall is that a violation of any rule?

Additionally, if the other team is not running autonomous, is the answer the same?

The robot is not directly touching the cube that crosses the line-e.g. trying to get the bottom 2 cubes of the stack.

Hello,

Would it be legal for Game objects to cross the autonomous line during autonomous without penalty? Specifically game objects that are not contacting the robot while doing so.

The rulebook currently implies this may be illegal because of SG7:

“Scoring Objects cannot be used to accomplish actions that would be otherwise illegal if they were attempted by Robot mechanisms.”

An interpretation of this may be that game objects cannot cross the autonomous line as a robot mechanism cannot as in SG3:

“Robots may not do any of the following:

1. Contact the foam tiles on the opposing Alliance’s side of the Autonomous Line.”

Additionally if this is ruled illegal would accidental or unintentional violations cause the alliance to lose the autonomous bonus or be disqualified, for example a ball rolls over the line after a robot flips a cap or a ball rebounds off the net and crosses the line?

Thank You in Advance

7975F - Download Complete

Could the update, G12 which states “game elements in possession of a robot are an extension of the robot” be clarified? It has been defined in defensive moves such as holding a cube to knock down stacks, etc. What about in an offensive situation like scoring of stacks at the end of a match? A referee questioned this at a tournament this weekend. Red had 1 stack of 6 scored. Their robot was in possession (not just touching) of a cube and that cube was touching the base cube of that stack. He felt that the way the rule is written, the stack should not be considered scored since the robot (through that cube in its possession) was touching the base of the stack. If the possession of a cube is an extension of the robot, referee felt the robot was touching the base cube of the stack since it possessed the cube that was touching it. We were referred to Figure 13 in the game manual where a robot is “touching” (not possessing a cube) and said cube was touching a stacked cube. All of the cubes of that second stack that that cube was touching were still considered scored. There is no other reference to a cube being an extension of the robot in the rules for offensive situations so either G12 only applies in defensive situations if the cubes are considered scored or it applies at all times, which mean some of the stacked cubes would not be considered scored. Hope I made his point clear. Please clarify. Thank you.

According to the attached photo, is it legal to place a Bean Bag upright against the Field Wall in the Loading Zone? The Bean Bag remains entirely within the Loading Zone, does not extend into the area above the Loading Zone, and does not exceed the height of the Field Wall. Is this legal?

Rule <SG7> (b) states:

Scoring Objects that begin the Match in contact with the Autonomous Line are not considered to be on either side, and may be utilized by either Alliance during the Autonomous Period...

and <SG7> (e):

Contact with either of the following during the Autonomous Period will result in the Autonomous Bonus and an Autonomous Win Point being awarded to the opposing Alliance, unless the opposing Alliance also breaks rules in the Autonomous Period: i. An opponent Robot that isn’t interacting with the Autonomous Line, objects that begin the Match positioned above or in contact with the Autonomous Line, or the Midfield (see <SG8>). ii. Scoring Objects on the other side of the Autonomous Line.

I am curious about the clause in (e).(i) that includes "..objects that begin the match positions above or in contact with the autonomous line.." stating that they are banned from use during autonomous and will result in both the autonomous bonus and win point awarded to the opposing alliance. The problem arises as: (b) is clarifying exactly what objects are considered to be "in contact" with the autonomous line, and that they are allowed to be used (e) is saying that objects "in contact" with the autonomous line are banned from use.

Would the GDC be able to clarify: A. Which ruling is intended to be correct, and in the case (b) is correct, any potential intent of including such clause in (e): such as banning other objects from use that may not be covered by (b)? B. If (e).(i) is correct in that those objects are unable to be contacted, does ".., or the midfield" mean objects that start on the midfield, or the midfield's lines and vertical projection itself?

<SC7><SC5><SG7>

How would the robots in the midfield at end of autonomous period be counted? Shown in the picture illustrated below with 2 Blue robots and 1 Red robot. One Blue robot was contacting the midfield goal and also pushed the other red robot that parked first. Another blue robot crossed the double autonomous line but entered the midfield.

Per SC5b. A yellow Pin Placed in the Midfield is Owned by the Alliance that ends the Match with a greater number of Robots in the Midfield. As this is not end of the match, yellow pin shall not be counted even with 2 parked Blue vs 1 parked Red.

Per SC7a, Points for ending the Autonomous Period in the Midfield are not included in the calculation of an Alliance’s score for the purposes of determining the Autonomous Bonus. Thus the Yellow pin shall not be counted as owned by Blue Alliance.

Per SG7, <SG7> Don’t cross the Autonomous Line, and don’t interfere with your opponents’ actions. Are all 3 robots violating?

Per SG8, <SG8> Engage with the Midfield and/or Autonomous Line during the Autonomous Period at your own risk. In this case, even if the Blue robot entered midfield and pushed the Red robot that has parked ealier time, Per SC8d, no penalty shall be given to Blue Alliance.

Result 1: No violation, midfield is allowed and autonomous line cross is allowed. With 2 parked blue vs 1 parked Red, Blue allicance won auton and also owned the yellow pin.

Result 2: No violation, midfield is allowed and autonomous line cross is allowed. Yellow pin is not owned by either Alliance. However, with 2 parked blue vs 1 Red, Blue alliance won the auton bonus points.

Result 3: All 3 robots violate SG7, thus no Auton bonus will be awarded.

Result 4: IF the Red robot did not enter the midfield but only the 2 Blue robots, then Red Alliance will receive the 12 AP, given Blue Alliance violating SG7

Could you clarify the robots in midfield at end of Autonomous Period, not end of match?

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.

<SG7> The definition of Load Zone states:

“A segment of the Floor on a short end of the Field. Each Load Zone is bordered by the inside of the Field Perimeter and the inside edges of the VEX IQ pieces connected to the Floor.”

Under SG7, a Bean Bag may be Loaded through the Load Zone if it meets the listed requirements, including being placed in contact with the Floor and remaining in contact with the Floor after it is released by the Loader until contacted by a Robot.

We would like clarification on how to judge whether a Bean Bag has been legally placed “in the Load Zone.”

If a Loader places a Bean Bag so that it is touching the Floor within the Load Zone, but the Bean Bag is also touching one of the VEX IQ pieces connected to the Floor that forms the border of the Load Zone, is this a legal Load?

Or, because the Load Zone is defined as a segment of the Floor bordered by the inside edges of those VEX IQ pieces, must the Bean Bag be fully contained within the Load Zone boundaries and not be touching or crossing onto the border pieces?

In other words, for a Bean Bag to be legally Loaded under SG7, is it sufficient that it is placed in contact with the Floor within the Load Zone, or must the entire Bean Bag be fully inside the Load Zone boundary as defined by the inside edges of the Field Perimeter and VEX IQ pieces connected to the Floor?

If the Bean Bag is touching both the Floor inside the Load Zone and a bordering VEX IQ piece, should this be considered an improper Load that must be retrieved and reintroduced under SG7-f?

We have built a double park mechanism that is a cage that holds a block. It follows the rule of SG1 and SG5. We are concerned about R7. We use one screw to tighten the c channel into a stand off to keep the block in the robot. We would need to unscrew it to get it out. R7 states easy removal and without power. Would unscrewing one screw to remove the block be considered easy removal?

<SG7> In a local tournament final, one of the robots on our alliance unexpectedly ran straight into the opponent’s side during the 15s autonomous. This disrupted the ball placement on the opponent’s side and blocked the opponent robot’s autonomous route, but it did not cause any damage to the opponent’s robot.

Our alliance explained to the referee that this behavior was caused by a loose odometry connection. However, the referee stated that they could not rule out whether the action was unintentional or intentional. This situation occurred only once during the entire tournament—specifically in the finals—and even the referee mentioned that they had never seen a similar incident before. As a result, we got ultimately disqualified in a final.

We would like to understand whether there is a clear rule or guideline that applies to this type of situation.