Q&A

<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?

Hello, In the provided image,Question: According to rule <SC5>, a Stack is considered "Placed in a Goal" if it is entirely within the outline that defines the Goal and meets specific height/stability requirements. Rule <SC3> further states that a Stack is built up from the Floor.

Does a Stack that is contacting the PET sheet (the floor lining) within a Goal Zone fulfill the requirement for being "Placed in a Goal"? <SC5>

<SE6 Clarification> In the case of a single stack being placed on the standoff, does the bottom pin need to be Yellow/Orange to get the matching goal bonus, or does any stack placed on the standoff get the Matching Goal Bonus regardless of what color pin is actually in contact with the standoff (e.g. if the bottom pin is red, does it still get the matching goal bonus)? It seems the connected pin should be matching the floor goal/standoff since being placed on the standoff is its own points, but all scoring examples I can find of single stacks all seem to have pictures of only yellow being in contact with the standoff, so the color bonus has applied. Thank you for clarification, as this would be especially important in skllls tallying where it is more likely that the pin "attached" to the standoff would be a different color. Thank you.

<SC5> (Stack is on Standoff, no Beam involved) <SC6> (Bottom pin of stack does not match floor goal/standoff color)

<SC5> Today I had a very close call (which I stand by as I used the same vertical view edge standard all day, but this was by far the closest call that had to be made), but I wanted to submit a Q&A review request in case RECF wants to clarify further. A stack was on the floor goal but the white line was clearly not visible when using a vertical reference view. However, from approximately somewhere around a 35-45 degree angle off vertical (to the right side of the stack), the white line could be seen under the edge of the pin due to pin edge curvature. Since SC5-c-i does indicate that the Stack must be "entirely within the center outline that defines the Floor Goal", my interpretation is that this is a vertical edge line upwards and that the edge of the bottom pin was not within that vertical edge projection (e.g., had something solid been introduced to define the white edge, the bottom pin would have clearly been an obstruction to that object). Unfortunately, I didn't realize I didn't get a picture of the angle at which the white line could be actually be seen, but I've included pictures from a couple different viewing angles so you can see just how close it was. So, (even though I don't have the picture of the visibility of the white line under the pin edge), the clarification I am asking for is if a vertical view edge standard is the correct interpretation, or does RECF want to allow for the white line being visible from any possible viewing angle, even if the bottom pin circumference would not be fully inside a vertical edge projection of the white outline. (Please note: This is not a question about the stacked pins being within the an infinite vertical volume, as that has already been determined in Q&A 2755 and was not the issue in this case--this is strictly in relation to the circumference of the base pin not being fully within what would be a vertical edge).

If a upside-down stack place on the standoff, like the picture below, does this stack consider as CONNECT TO the standoff goal to the 10 points bonus?

<SC5> <SE7>show an example of standoff goal bonus. Today I got another standoff case. standoff connected to a red/blue pin, then bean and stacks. how to count the case?

We believe in the picture below, it should 84 points since it has 4 pins, 1 connected beam, 2 three color stacks, 2 stacks connected to a beam, 2 stacks on standoff goal. But we were repeated deny this score in our school's league and need to explain a lot for this situation. Can you help me to clarify it and use it as an example in the game manually. thanks.

<SC6> <SC5>

<SC5>

Does the Standoff Goal count as a goal (which can be touching a robot) or part of the stack (which cannot be touching the robot) for the purposes of scoring?

In the example below the robot is touching the standoff but NOT touching the stack.

<SC5>

SC5 says you can have a maximum of 3 stacks in the triangle shaped goal. Does that mean you can get 3 separate matching goal bonuses from 3 stacks in the same corner goal?

In this situation, this Stack is partly on the white outline of Floor Goal, but not beyond it at all, so does this Stack meet "entirely within" in <SC5.c>?

(https://events.vex.com/storage/game_manual/VEX_IQ_Robotics_Competition_2025-2026_Mix_Match/rules/SC5.html) Rule SC5A states, "A Stack is considered Placed in a Goal at the end of the Match if it meets all of the following criteria. a. There are at least two (2) Connected Scoring Objects in the Stack. b. No part of the Stack is contacting a Robot. **** c. The Stack meets one of the following criteria:**** i. The Stack is entirely within the center outline that defines the Floor Goal (maximum of four (4) Stacks). ii. The Stack is entirely within a Square Goal (maximum of one (1) Stack per Goal). **** iii. The Stack is entirely within a Triangle Goal (maximum of three (3) Stacks per Goal).**** iv. The Stack is Connected to the Standoff Goal or (via a Beam) to another Stack that is Placed on the Standoff Goal (maximum of one (1) Stack without including a Beam, or three (3) Stacks if all share a Beam).

Per SC5ciii The maximum number of stacks in a Triangle Goal is three and they must be entirely within the goal. Per the definition of a Goal each Triangle Goal is bordered by the inside of the Field Perimeter and the inside of the PVC pipe that spans the corner of the Field. (1) Are the borders of the Triangle Goal infinitely vertical? If so, (2) is it possible for three stacks to be connected to a Beam and placed in a Triangle Goal and be entirely within the Goal? And, if so, (3) how would you score three, three colored stacks connected to a Beam and placed in a Matching Goal?

<SC5c> requires a stack to be "entirely within" a goal to be considered placed in a goal. This is a prerequisite to score the matching goal bonus in <SC6>.

Any stack of two or more pins will rarely be perfectly vertical. Each pin in the stack may be a millimeter or two to the side. Included is a picture of a stack of six pins since it shows this shifting more drastically than a stack of two or three. The stack is pushed into the corner of the triangle goal in a way than the bottom pin is flush with the floor wall and the inside edge of the pipe - clearly within the goal. Each pin shifts further and further toward the outside of the field and crosses the floor wall. The triangle goal is defined by the inside of the floor wall and the inside of the pipe. However, the stack crosses this vertical plane as it gets taller.

Is this stack "entirely within" the floor goal if it crosses the vertical plane of the floor goal boundary?

Similar situations could be created with the square goal and floor goal where the bottom pin is within the boundary but successively stacked pins shift outside the vertical perimeter.

In <SC6>, it states:

A Stack earns a Matching Goal bonus when one or more of the following criteria is met: a. The Stack is Placed in a Goal with a color that matches the bottom Pin in that Stack. b. The Stack is Connected to a Beam.

Additionally <SC5c>, states

The Stack meets one of the following criteria: i. The Stack is entirely within the center outline that defines the Floor Goal (maximum of four (4) Stacks). ii. The Stack is entirely within a Square Goal (maximum of one (1) Stack per Goal). iii. The Stack is entirely within a Triangle Goal (maximum of three (3) Stacks per Goal). iv. The Stack is Connected to the Standoff Goal or (via a Beam) to another Stack that is Placed on the Standoff Goal (maximum of one (1) Stack without including a Beam, or three (3) Stacks if all share a Beam).

Given these Rules, how would the 2 scenarios below be scored?

Scenario 1 sees a stack of 3 pins and 1 beam extending off of the floor goal so that the beam connects to the standoff goal, with another stack of 2 on top of connected to the beam. With this would the stack on top of the beam be considered placed on the floor goal because it is connected to the beam, or placed on the standoff goal?

Additionally, Scenario 2 sees the same scenario but now the beam is considered connected to the standoff goal due to an added pin in between the standoff goal and the beam. Would this change the outcome of the Scenario?

<img src="https://events.vex.com/storage/markdown/uploads/yWlqOTSMmEe4JVdN83aYbIq8kaCxIvd0zAmYqKV6.jpg" height="200" /> <img src="https://events.vex.com/storage/markdown/uploads/ehr1XotVPCHRT9dAgEmFtrg0CFIbZ8TttkEAkFF6.jpg" height="200" />

Lastly, SC5c also states that there is a maximum of 4 stacks in the floor goal, if a robot would push 3 more stacks into the floor goal, would any of the stacks be not considered within the floor goal given the results of the above 2 scenarios?

In <SC5>.c.iv, the stacks connected to anther placed stack via Beam will be placed on standoff goal too. And with <SC5>.b, a stack that is contacting a robot will not be placed, so the stack below than beam not placed to the standoff goal. I'd like to know, in this moment, does the beam and two stacks that above the beam placed on standoff goal, could it get the standoff goal bonus .

There are teams that are trying to compress the ball to a point of being near flat to Rapid Load directly under their Rubberband roller so that when the ball reforms to its correct dimensions of the intake roller. This also can run the risk of an EP needing replacement objects due to the high stress on the seams of the ball and students running the risk of breaking the ball in the middle of the run.

Sc5 the ball can NOT be in motion to be legally rapid loaded would this action count as motion of the ball?

"Note: Although it is not required, Robots are highly recommended to remain some distance away from the Ball entirely until the Loader’s hand has clearly been removed. This will make clauses “B” and “C” abundantly clear to Head Referees, and help them to verify clauses “A” and “D”.

The revised intent of this rule is that the human Loader should not impart any motion to a Rapid Load Ball. However, because Balls are round, it is possible that they may move slightly after being placed by the Loader. This incidental and unintentional motion is acceptable, and there is no need to retrieve and reload the Ball in this scenario."

<S1> Stay safe, don’t damage the Field. If, at any time, the Robot operation or Team actions are deemed unsafe or have damaged any Field Elements or Balls, the offending Team may be Disabled and/or Disqualified at the Head Referee’s discretion. The Robot will require re-inspection before it may again take the Field.

<G10>

When a robot needs assistance while on the field a student must:

1. Put their controller down
2. Remove any balls in their posession (getting "controlled" by robot)
3. Assist the robot as necessary
4. Replace the robot in a legal starting position

G10 does not currently require that the robot is removed from the field while assisting it, whether that is reattaching pieces, putting wheels back on etc.

<SC5>

A pass is counted after:

1. Both robots have independent contact with the ball
2. The ball having met the above criteria has not already been counted for a pass
3. The ball has not been "rapid loaded"

SC5 does not currently exclude robots that are being assisted through G10 from receiving a pass.

Here are a couple important scenarios to consider:

1. Should a pass be counted if the robot still driving on the field grabs a new ball from the load station and pushes it into the robot getting fixed?
2. Should that same pass as described above still count if the robot is moved into the ball by the drivers that are fixing the robot? (My thoughts right now are that 1 should count but that 2 would be in violation of G10 based on the violation notes describing possible exploitation of this action)
3. Should a pass be counted if a robot being assisted touched a ball before being assisted but was not controlling it when enacting G10, and the robot still driving then goes over and touches the ball?
4. Should teams be required to remove their robots from the field if they are fixing something over a length of time?

The questions I'm posing revolve around the specificity of G10, and whether or not robots are treated the same while being assisted or not. I believe that 1 and 3 should be considered passes, and that 2 would be violating G10.

<SC5> states that "An Alliance receives credit for a Pass once both Robots independently contact a Ball before it is Scored or leaves the Field."

Question: is it required for a ball to be scored or leave the field before it counts for a pass?

For example, during the last seconds of a match

• Robot 1 makes independent contact with the ball
• The ball is passed to robot 2
• Robot 2 makes independent contact with the ball
• The timer expires before the ball is scored or leaves the field

Should this ball be counted as passed?

Right before the protected period, blue1 is slightly tilting the goal away from their robot in the positive corner on the opposite side of the field in a way that is indeterminable from a head referee and some scorekeeper referee's points of views if the mobile goal is placed but it can be reasonably assumed the goal could be placed. At 30 seconds they drive away and the goal slightly drops from the tilt, causing concern it might have been lifted.

Should a mobile goal always be considered not placed unless confirmed placed similar to Q&A 2122, or should we give benefit of the doubt in the situations that could be considered 50/50 calls?

<SC5> During one of our matches, RED1 puts a mobile goal with blue rings in the negative corner, however there is still the 4 rings that began in the corner present. The mobile goal's edge (Not base) is over the tape line. Would this goal be considered scored? It does break the plane of the corner, however there are still rings in the corner.

<SC5> <2220> <2286> <2305> In our recent competition we ran into a understanding of this rule that I would like clarified.

One team, robot 1, spit the ball at another team so that it bounced off robot 2 and considered that a pass then robot 1 got the ball and scored.

Technically they both independently contacted it. Can the first robot get the ball again to score. Would this count as one goal and one pass?

In this same competition, Robot 1 attempts to score but misses then Robot 2 picks up that ball and counts it as a pass and then scores. Would this count as one goal and one pass?