Q&A

<GG17>Our team participated in the Rodeo Signature Event. After the finals, we learned from another Ruiguan robot driver about a mechanism that caused us to lose all of the pushing competitions during the final matches.

The issue lies in a specific Ruiguan robot design feature: an extremely low and wide polycarbonate aligner mounted at the rear of the robot. During pushing matches, these robots do not attempt to engage head-to-head in a straight, parallel push. Instead, the driver intentionally avoids direct alignment and uses the rear polycarbonate aligner to wedge into one side of the opponent’s drivetrain wheels. This maneuver slightly lifts the opponent’s wheels off the ground, causing a loss of traction and power, allowing the Ruiguan robot to win the push or pin. This action occurs very quickly and often within three seconds.

Many drivers are aware of this technique, even though some teams may simply copy the design without fully understanding how to exploit it. Another tactic we were told about involves maximizing the size of the polycarbonate aligner. When the aligner is sufficiently large, even during a standard pushing interaction, one side of the opponent’s drivetrain or rear wheel can ride up onto the polycarbonate surface, resulting in a loss of traction without requiring precise driver control.

The first video below shows a clear example of this strategy. The blue Ruiguan robot was expected to push straight toward the red robot on the left to defend their blue balls. Instead, it deliberately reversed, moved to the top position (surprisingly away from the long goal), and then made a sharp right-angle turn to attempt to wedge the white and large polycarbonate aligner into one side of the red robot’s drivetrain. We avoided the initial attempt by backing away, which allowed us to push them back successfully. However, the blue robot then repositioned strategically and successfully wedged its polycarbonate aligner into our rear wheel, causing our drivetrain to lose power and ultimately resulting in our loss.

The second video below shows another clear example of this strategy. The blue Ruiguan robot repeatedly reverses to a top position (away from the long goal) at a specific angle and then makes a sharp right-angle turn to wedge the polycarbonate aligner into one side of the red robot’s drivetrain. Although we attempted to avoid having our wheels ride onto the polycarbonate, there was no way to avoid it as the polyarbonate is "huge".

So our questions are: Is this kind of wedge legal or not, as it is a design that could be used intentionally to lift other robots? In addition, is this kind of short lift (usually less than three seconds) legal or not? Thank you.

Video 1.gif

Video 2.gif

<GG17>

Example: BLUE1 pins RED1 and a count begins. BLUE1 backs off before 3 seconds and attempts to separate 2 feet away. RED1 maneuvers to remain within 1 foot of BLUE1 under their own choice, never allowing the distance to be maintained for 5 seconds.

If the ref can tell BLUE1 is actively trying to separate and doesn't resume pinning, should the 5 seconds be waved off, or should it remain?

According to rule <GG17>, teams are not allowed to Hold other Robots for more than a 3 count. Does pushing Robots around the field count as Holding, and would it count towards a penalty?

The definition of Holding includes Trapping, Pinning, and Lifting.

Trapping is "Limiting the movement of an opponent Robot to a small or confined area of the Field, approximately the size of one foam field tile or less, without an avenue for escape." This does not apply in this scenario as the pushed Robot would be moving outside of a space approximately the size of one foam tile.

Lifting is "Controlling an opponent's movements by raising or tilting the opponent's Robot off of the foam tiles.” This also does not apply, as the Robot getting pushed will just slide across the Floor and not get tilted or raised.

Pinning is the only one left, and it is not as clear whether or not this one counts. It says "Preventing the movement of an opponent Robot through contact with the Field Perimeter, a Field Element, or another Robot." Under the definition of a Field Element is the Field. The Field consists of the Floor. The definition of the Floor includes all the foam tiles. In the case of pushing, this rule could be interpreted as preventing the individual free will movement of an opponent Robot using [Foam Tiles], which in this case would be considered Pinning.

Even if this is considered Holding, In rule <GG17b>, it says that a way for the Holding count to pause is if "Either Robot has moved at least two (2) feet away (approximately one tile) from the location where the Trapping or Pinning count began." This will be fulfilled when the pushing Robot moves with the pushed Robot more than two feet away from the starting point of contact. So would pushing of any kind (That does not tip a Robot) be completely legal? If not, here are some scenarios that might differ in that answer:

(All these scenarios are different and might change the legality of pushing based on rule <GG15> which states that "Offensive Robots get the "benefit of the doubt.""

Scenario 1: RED1 is trying to score on a goal, when BLUE1 pushes them more than two feet out of the way to stop them

Scenario 2: RED1 is sitting at the end of a goal attempting to prevent the BLUE team from scoring, but BLUE1 pushes RED1 more than two feet away and goes to score.

Scenario 3: RED1 is scoring at a goal, and BLUE1 is coming up to them to push them out of the way. RED2 then pushes BLUE1 more than two feet away to stop them from being defensive and preventing their ally from scoring.

None of these scenarios are match affecting.

What is the legality of these scenarios, what would be the penalty for all of these, and will the rules change to change the previous two answers or not?

Good Evening GDC,

After some discussion, we are looking to determine if a Head Referee should focus first on an < SG10 > violation or on a potential hold < GG17 > of the robot committing the < SG10 > violation.

For an example:

• RED1 goes to descore a goal and inserts its arm into the open section as allowed, with no current violations of < SG10 >
• With the new definitions of defensive and offensive on 12/4, RED1 becomes defensive ("descoring in a way that doesn't increase points for the Robot's own Alliance")
• BLUE1 goes over to prevent the descore of the blocks in the goal
• RED1 has their arm still in the open section of the goal and claims that they are being held "pinned" by BLUE1 (in this instance, they no longer are actively moving blocks in the goal, thus they are now goalkeeping)

If RED1 were to remove their arm from the open portion of the goal, a hold count would be started instantly in this situation because it is clear to the Head Referee that RED1 wants to leave the area now, rather than stay there and continue descoring objects.

If RED1 is not actively moving blocks, they are in violation of < SG10 > and need to remove their arm from the goal immediately as they are goalkeeping.

The question becomes is should a hold count be started by the Head Referee immediately when this situation occurs, or should RED1 remove their arm from the goal first to remedy the < SG10 > violation?

The assumption is that the < SG10 > violation should be resolved first due to RED1 above being the defensive robot, getting no "benefit of the doubt" from < GG15 >, as written in < SG10a >.

Thank you for your time, Cowboy

We reviewed Q&A 2744 regarding trapping near a Long Goal. Our question adds a scenario where the trapped robot is actively attempting to descore. Does this intent affect the Holding count or legality of prolonged immobilization?

Trapping (Game Manual 2.1) - Limiting the movement of an opponent Robot to a small or confined area of the Field, approximately the size of one foam field tile or less, without an avenue for escape. Note that if a Robot is not attempting to escape, it is not considered Trapped.

GG17: A Robot may not Hold an opposing Robot for more than a 3-count during the Driver Controlled Period. The count begins immediately once the Head Referee observes a suspected Holding interaction.

Rule <GG17>

Q&A 2744: Clarified that if two Robots work together to trap an opponent between the Field Perimeter and a Long Goal, the Holding count and subsequent violation apply if the count exceeds three.

(https://events.vex.com/V5RC/2025-2026/QA/2744)

Does this change under the scenario below?

Scenario

• A Blue Robot is positioned behind a Long Goal filled with Red Blocks.
• The Blue Robot deploys a mechanism to legally descore blocks.
• Two Red Robots “sandwich” the Blue Robot so it cannot move in any direction, preventing descoring.
• The Blue Robot actively attempts to escape but cannot move.

Question:

• Does the Blue Robot’s intent to descore change whether a Holding count should start?
• If not, would the two Red Robots be allowed to keep the Blue Robot from moving for the remainder of the match if strategically advantageous?

Figure: Blue Robot attempting to descore is trapped between two Red Robots and the Field Perimeter

In Push Back, we frequently see scores change rapidly, which causes teams to adjust their strategy throughout the match based on the current score. I would like clarification on how “match affecting” is determined when a major violation occurs early in the match and significantly impacts a team’s ability to execute their intended strategy.

Scenario:

Team A nearly fills an upper goal during autonomous and continues to score into it once driver control begins.

Team B moves toward the upper goal to begin descoring.

Team A initiates a holding violation that exceeds the referee’s 3-count.

After Team A releases them, Team B attempts to resume their descoring actions, only to find Team A has repositioned to block the opposite side of the goal.

If Team B had not been held past the 3-count, they would have begun descoring earlier. This earlier access to the goal would likely have changed their strategy for the remainder of the match.

I have read and understand that “match affecting” is determined by comparing the final score to a hypothetical score had the violation not occurred. However, in cases like this, the majority of the match may have unfolded differently because of the violation, even if the final score does not directly reflect this impact.

Request for clarification: Should “match affecting” be evaluated solely based on the final score outcome, or should referees also consider whether a violation materially changed the strategic flow of the match at the time it occurred?

Thank you for your guidance.<GG17>

Note: The GDC revised this question and its title to better reflect the definitions and processes in the game manual.

Red 1 holds Blue 2 for a 3-count, per <GG17>, then the following scenarios happen:

1. Red 1 continues to hold Blue 2 for an additional 1-count, for a total of 4
2. Red 1 continues to hold Blue 2 for an additional 3-count, for a total of 6
3. Red 1 backs away for a 4-count, and then resumes a hold on Blue 2 for an additional 1-count, for a total of 4

Which of these should be minor violations, and which should be major?

When determining whether the violation is match affecting, should the Head Referee consider the actions Blue 2 could have made for the total count or only the additional time exceeding the initial 3-count?

Scenario: Robot Red A plays defense and their design is prone to entanglement during interactions. In multiple previous matches, referees have observed RED A tipping or becoming entangled after minor contact with different opponents.

During a Qualification Match, RED A plays defense against Robot Blue A. In the course of a normal pushing interaction, Robot Red A flips over.

Question: According to rule <GG14>, should Robot Blue A receive a penalty for tipping its opponent, given that the interaction was a normal part of gameplay and Robot Red A's design is known to be unstable? Any violation for RED A?

Per V2.0 of the Game Manual:

Holding - A Robot status; see rule <GG17> for more information. Holding is legal until it exceeds the limits in <GG17>. A Robot is considered to be Holding if it meets any of the following criteria during a Match:

Trapping - Limiting the movement of an opponent Robot to a small or confined area of the Field, approximately the size of one foam field tile or less, without an avenue for escape. Note that if a Robot is not attempting to escape, it is not considered Trapped.

Pinning - Preventing the movement of an opponent Robot through contact with the Field Perimeter, a Field Element, or another Robot.

Lifting - Controlling an opponent’s movements by raising or tilting the opponent’s Robot off of the foam tiles. Preventing a Robot that is already off of the Floor from returning to the Floor may also be considered Lifting or Trapping.

<GG17> No Holding for more than a 3-count. A Robot may not Hold an opposing Robot for more than a 3-count during the Driver Controlled Period. For the purposes of this rule, a “count” is defined as an interval of time that is approximately one second in duration, and “counted out” by Head Referees verbally. A Head Referee should begin a Holding count immediately when Holding is observed. The Holding count should pause when at least one of the following conditions is met:

a. The two Robots are separated by at least two (2) feet (approximately one foam tile).

b. Either Robot has moved at least two (2) feet away (approximately one tile) from the location where the Trapping or Pinning count began.

• i. In the case of Lifting, this location is measured from where the Lifted Robot is released, not from where the Lifting began.*

c. The Holding Robot becomes Trapped or Pinned by a different Robot.

• i. In this case, the original count would end, and a new count would begin for the newly Trapped or Pinned Robot.*

d. In the case of Trapping, if an avenue of escape becomes available due to changing circumstances in the Match.

After a Holding count ends, a Robot may not resume Holding the same Robot again for a 5-count. If a Team resumes Holding the same Robot within that 5-count, the original Holding count will resume from where it ended. A Head Referee should use fingers to display the 5-count that occurs after the end of a Holding count, and “wave it off” after the Holding interaction has been cleared.

According to <GG17> "A Head Referee should begin a Holding count immediately when Holding is observed."

There are two ways this could be interpreted:

1. As soon as the Head Referee verifies that the robot in question meets the status as outlined in the definition of Holding, then the count should begin. (This would take about 2 seconds depending on the situation)
2. As soon as the Head Referee observes two robots in close proximity to the point where it may be considered Holding, a count should begin, with the verification happening afterwards. (Could be an issue with the limit of a 3-count instead of 5-count)

What is the GDC's stance on this interpretation?

Thank you, Cowboy

In the general definitions, Trapping is defined as follows:

Holding - A Robot status; see rule <GG17> for more information. A Robot is considered to be Holding if it meets any of the following criteria during a Match:

• > Trapping - Limiting the movement of an opponent Robot to a small or confined area of the Field, approximately the size of one foam field tile or less, without an avenue for escape. Note that if a Robot is not attempting to escape, it is not considered Trapped.

1. Is underneath the Long Goal, a Field Element with a clearance of 12.53" (320mm), considered an avenue of escape for holding calls?

2. If two robots are working together to Trap an opponent between the Field Perimeter and a Long Goal, which robot(s) should the head ref call out?

3. If the two robots are taking turns Trapping and moving away, when does it become a violation, and for which robot(s)?

In the general definitions, Trapping is defined as follows:

Holding - A Robot status; see rule <GG17> for more information. A Robot is considered to be Holding if it meets any of the following criteria during a Match:

• > Trapping - Limiting the movement of an opponent Robot to a small or confined area of the Field, approximately the size of one foam field tile or less, without an avenue for escape. Note that if a Robot is not attempting to escape, it is not considered Trapped.

1. Is the Park Zone considered an avenue of escape from Holding?

2. Does the answer change depending on if the Held Robot is able to drive over the plastic extrusions of the Park Zone?