Q&A

Hello,

SG2

Robot expansion is limited once the Match begins. Per <G4>, at the beginning of a Match, each Robot must be smaller than a volume of 18” (457.2 mm) long by 18” (457.2 mm) wide by 18” (457.2mm) tall. Once the Match begins, Robots may expand, but no horizontal dimension can exceed 36” (914.4 mm) at any point during the Match. See Figure 24.

Note: This is intended to be a linear, horizontal, “point-to-point” limit, measured across an expanded Robot. It is not a 3D volume, and it does not “rotate” with the Robot.

Note 2: If a Head Referee is uncertain whether a Robot has momentarily expanded beyond this limit, they may ask the Team after the Match to replicate the Robot’s state and check for compliance using a tape measure, VRC Expanded Sizing Tool, or other linear measuring device.

Minor violations of this rule that do not affect or interfere with 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

SG10

Use Scoring Objects to play the game. Scoring Objects 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 routine per <SG4>.)

The intent of this rule is to prohibit teams from using game objects as “gloves” to loophole any rule that states “a Robot may not [do some action]”. This rule is not intended to be taken in its most extreme literal interpretation, where any interaction between a Scoring Object and a Robot needs to be scrutinized with the same intensity as if it were a Robot.

With 2 bar mobile goal lifts, teams have found they can hold the tall neutral goal so the pole is parallel to the ground and can increase the effective length of their robot. My interpretation is because of the SG10 note, this would only be illegal if it's used intentionally.

Is using a Scoring Object to increase the Robots horizontal length past 36" legal? What should a Referee look for to determine if an action violates <SG2> through <SG10>?

Thank you for your time!

Hello,

SG3

Platforms are “safe” during the endgame. During the last thirty (30) seconds, Robots may not contact the opposing Alliance’s Platform.

a. For the purposes of this rule, contact is considered “transitive” through other Robots and Scoring Objects. For example, contacting an opposing Robot who is contacting their own Platform would be considered a violation of this rule.

b. For the purposes of this rule, <G13> supersedes rule <G14>. Any Robot which is contacting its own Platform during the last thirty (30) seconds, provided that no other rules are being violated, will automatically receive the “benefit of the doubt”. Therefore, any contact with this Robot will be considered a violation, regardless of intent.

c. Per <SG10>, using a Scoring Object to contact the opposing Alliance’s Platform during the last thirty (30) seconds would be considered a violation of this rule. Placing a Scoring Object underneath the opposing Alliance’s Platform, such that it inhibits the opposing Alliance’s ability to utilize the Platform during the last thirty (30) seconds, would also be considered a violation of this rule.

SG10

Use Scoring Objects to play the game. Scoring Objects 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 routine per <SG4>.) The intent of this rule is to prohibit teams from using game objects as “gloves” to loophole any rule that states “a Robot may not [do some action]”. This rule is not intended to be taken in its most extreme literal interpretation, where any interaction between a Scoring Object and a Robot needs to be scrutinized with the same intensity as if it were a Robot.

Field Element Definition

The foam field tiles, field perimeter, white tape, Platforms, and all supporting structures or accessories (such as driver station posts, field monitors, etc).

Scoring Object Definition

A Ring or Mobile Goal.

Q&A 813 https://events.vex.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/813 “bolded portion” is SG3 C

The intent of this rule is to prohibit Teams from preventing their opponents' Platforms to become Balanced during the last thirty (30) seconds of the Match. The intent of the bolded portion is to prohibit Teams from using Scoring Objects to do so.

Q&A 816 https://events.vex.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/816

Q. I assume that if a team was to accidentally cause a Scoring Object to end up underneath the opposition Platform, if they were able to remove this before the last 30 seconds there would be no risk of an SG3 violation.

A. This would generally be a correct interpretation, yes.

it would not be feasible for a Head Referee to track which Alliance was last in contact with all Rings and Mobile Goals around the field.

Q&A 842 https://events.vex.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/842

If faced with this situation, we would recommend that Head Referees ask questions such as the following to guide their decision: How did the Mobile Goal get under the Platform? Has the Team in question received prior warnings or violations? Why did the red alliance not attempt to Balance the Platform? Does G13 and/or G14 apply (for either Alliance)?

It has been established that placing game objects underneath the opponents platform, if it inhibits the opponents from using the platform in the final 30 seconds, would be a violation of SG3 C if a referee verifies that it happened.

This brings up the scenario of tipping an opponent platform that already has a Scoring Object on it. It is legal to contact the opposition's Platform before the last 30 seconds, but illegal to leave a Scoring Object contacting the platform during the final 30 seconds.

When tipping a Platform before the final 30 seconds, Scoring Objects are being moved to the base of the Platform, in a similar place to where a Mobile Goal starts the match. If these Scoring Objects aren’t removed before the final 30 seconds, this is potentially a violation of SG3 C through SG10.

Does SG10 include using a Field Element to move Scoring Objects? Does this change if a Scoring Object is used to move the Field Element that interacts with Scoring Objects?

Thank you for your time!

(Is the text under SG10 meant to be in a red box?)

Hello,

SG3

Platforms are “safe” during the endgame. During the last thirty (30) seconds, Robots may not contact the opposing Alliance’s Platform.

a. For the purposes of this rule, contact is considered “transitive” through other Robots and Scoring Objects. For example, contacting an opposing Robot who is contacting their own Platform would be considered a violation of this rule.

b. For the purposes of this rule, <G13> supersedes rule <G14>. Any Robot which is contacting its own Platform during the last thirty (30) seconds, provided that no other rules are being violated, will automatically receive the “benefit of the doubt”. Therefore, any contact with this Robot will be considered a violation, regardless of intent.

c. Per <SG10>, using a Scoring Object to contact the opposing Alliance’s Platform during the last thirty (30) seconds would be considered a violation of this rule. Placing a Scoring Object underneath the opposing Alliance’s Platform, such that it inhibits the opposing Alliance’s ability to utilize the Platform during the last thirty (30) seconds, would also be considered a violation of this rule.

SG10

Use Scoring Objects to play the game. Scoring Objects 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 routine per <SG4>.)

The intent of this rule is to prohibit teams from using game objects as “gloves” to loophole any rule that states “a Robot may not [do some action]”. This rule is not intended to be taken in its most extreme literal interpretation, where any interaction between a Scoring Object and a Robot needs to be scrutinized with the same intensity as if it were a Robot.

Field Element Definition

The foam field tiles, field perimeter, white tape, Platforms, and all supporting structures or accessories (such as driver station posts, field monitors, etc).

Scoring Object Definition

A Ring or Mobile Goal.

Q&A 813 https://events.vex.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/813 “bolded portion” is SG3 C

The intent of this rule is to prohibit Teams from preventing their opponents' Platforms to become Balanced during the last thirty (30) seconds of the Match. The intent of the bolded portion is to prohibit Teams from using Scoring Objects to do so.

Q&A 816 https://events.vex.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/816

Q. I assume that if a team was to accidentally cause a Scoring Object to end up underneath the opposition Platform, if they were able to remove this before the last 30 seconds there would be no risk of an SG3 violation.

A. This would generally be a correct interpretation, yes.

it would not be feasible for a Head Referee to track which Alliance was last in contact with all Rings and Mobile Goals around the field.

Q&A 842 https://events.vex.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/842

If faced with this situation, we would recommend that Head Referees ask questions such as the following to guide their decision: How did the Mobile Goal get under the Platform? Has the Team in question received prior warnings or violations? Why did the red alliance not attempt to Balance the Platform? Does G13 and/or G14 apply (for either Alliance)?

It has been established that placing game objects underneath the opponents platform is illegal if a referee verifies that it happened, it would be a violation of SG3 C.

Is placing a Scoring Object on the opponents Platform a violation of SG3 C?

Thank you for your time!

Hello,

SG3

Platforms are “safe” during the endgame. During the last thirty (30) seconds, Robots may not contact the opposing Alliance’s Platform.

a. For the purposes of this rule, contact is considered “transitive” through other Robots and Scoring Objects. For example, contacting an opposing Robot who is contacting their own Platform would be considered a violation of this rule.

b. For the purposes of this rule, <G13> supersedes rule <G14>. Any Robot which is contacting its own Platform during the last thirty (30) seconds, provided that no other rules are being violated, will automatically receive the “benefit of the doubt”. Therefore, any contact with this Robot will be considered a violation, regardless of intent.

c. Per <SG10>, using a Scoring Object to contact the opposing Alliance’s Platform during the last thirty (30) seconds would be considered a violation of this rule. Placing a Scoring Object underneath the opposing Alliance’s Platform, such that it inhibits the opposing Alliance’s ability to utilize the Platform during the last thirty (30) seconds, would also be considered a violation of this rule.

Robot 1&2 - Red
Robot 3&4 - Blue
Robot 1 becomes disabled due to a battery unplugging and cannot move. Robot 3 or 4 pushes robot 1 so they are underneath the platform while the platform is unbalanced, and makes no attempt to move them. Robot 2 platforms, and meets all definitions of Elevated except for the Platform contacting Robot 1.

Is this a violation of SG3 A regardless of intention?

Thank you for your time!

The tall Neutral Mobile Goal tips over in more than 3/4 of the matches played. it is unstable, even without Ringles on the branches. Given that once there are Ringles on the branches, a robot will be disqualified if they tip that goal over and the impact of the descoring was match effecting, many teams will choose to avoid the risk of disqualification by tipping the Neutral Mobile Goal over early in the game. Some creative teams might even accidentally tip it over onto an opponents robot. With the branches hanging out the way they do, we have seen that it is likely that a robot on the receiving end of the tipped Mobile Goal will then drag that Mobile Goal around with it for the rest of the match. Is there any penalty for knocking over the tall Neutral Mobile Goal before there are any Ringles on it?

The rules do not seem to protect the area under your opponent's platform. Objects under the platform can deny your opponent the ability to drive a robot onto their platform, and they can prevent a platform from being balanced. The rules do not seem to prevent this defensive strategy.

Under <SG10>, Robots are not permitted to remove Scoring Objects from Neutral Mobile Goals. The rule notes that a Violation of this rule may lead to a penalty and could be Match Affecting.

At recent regional events, there has been a difference in interpretation regarding how SG10 violations should escalate to a Major Violation (Disqualification):

Interpretation A (Local Event Ruling): If a Robot removes two or more Scoring Objects in a single continuous action, the infraction automatically escalates to a Major Violation resulting in a Disqualification (DQ), regardless of whether the action directly altered the outcome of the Match.

Interpretation B (Manual Interpretation): A single action removing multiple Scoring Objects constitutes a Minor Violation unless it is determined to be Match Affecting or part of a pattern of repeated Violations after a warning, as per general rule guidelines.

Questions for the GDC:

1. Does removing two or more Scoring Objects in a single action automatically constitute an automatic Major Violation (DQ) on its own?
2. Is the escalation from a Minor Violation to a Major Violation under SG10 strictly governed by whether the action is Match Affecting (or repeated), or can a Head Referee escalate it to a Major Violation based solely on the quantity of Scoring Objects affected in a single event?

Thank you for your time and clarification!

<SG9>Dear Game Design Committee, We have a few questions on the interactions with goals. <SG9>: “Robots may not directly or indirectly interact with opposing Alliance-colored Goals.” <SG10>: “Placed Scoring Objects cannot be removed from neutral Goals.” The rulebook had no mention on interactions with Goals on the their own alliance.

Our first question is, is the removal of Scoring Objects on our own alliance allowed? For example: Blue alliance has stacked up on blue alliance goals and they topple their pins and cups over, would such actions violate the game rule?

Our second question is, if an interaction with neutral or opposing goal is forced, such as the blue alliance contacts an opposing goal due to a red alliance robot playing pushing the blue alliance, or toppling over pins scored in neutral goals due to an opponent robot pushing the robot towards the goals, would blue alliance violate rules <SG9> and <SG10>?

Our last question is, does toppling pins scored on your own alliance goals due to opponent contact cause our opponent to violate the rules? For example, blue alliance was scoring a pin on top of their goal, and a red alliance robot pushes the blue alliance robot toward their goal, causing them to topple over the scoring objects. Would red alliance violate the rules doing so? Quoting <SG9>: “Robots may not directly or indirectly interact with opposing Alliance-colored Goals.” Would this count as indirect interaction, therefore giving red alliance a penalty? Thank you for taking the time, 68678M

In the rulebook, <SG10> states that "Placed Scoring Objects cannot be removed from neutral Goals.". <SC2> clearly identifies an example of a position a pin may take on a stack which is not Placed, shown in Figure SC2-2 (pin placed horizontally on a cup without either half of the pin being entirely contained within the concave portion of the cup).

We wanted to ask about the legality of the following:

(a) Removing a Pin that is not Placed, such as a Pin positioned similarly to the one shown in Figure SC2-2.

(b) Removing a Cup which is similarly balanced horizontally on top of other game elements without being placed.

(c) Removing a Cup which is balanced on top of another Cup without a pin in between (or, similarly, a Pin balanced on a Pin with no Cups in between).

(d) Removing a Placed cup which is not affecting the score of the game (ex. transparent part facing downwards, with no pins above, thereby not adding or subtracting points from the game.

(e) If it would be a major violation to accidentally knock over protected scoring elements in an effort to reopen an alliance or neutral goal for scoring by removing a game element that was positioned on the goal but not Scored/Placed.

(f) Rule <SG9> states that "Robots may not directly or indirectly interact with the opposing Alliance-colored Goals", and clarifies that this includes adding and removing scoring objects. Would stacking a horizontal game element as seen in Figure SC2-1, or any unplaced game elements as stated above count as interaction with these goals? By definition, this is not Placed, and it is not an action of descoring, but it forces the opposing alliance to take time to reopen their own alliance's goal for scoring.

(g) If it would be a violation of <SG6> for one of these game elements to fall onto a bot already possessing 1 pin and 1 cup in the action of removing it from the goal.

Thank you so much!

I am looking for a little more clarification of Q3024.

1. Is it legal for a robot to indefinitely block the end of a goal, thus preventing any blocks from being scored or descored, by a. not contacting any part of the goal itself but within an inch of the end of a goal b. by placing something over the goal such as a piece or custom plastic, that touches the goal

2. Is it legal for a robot to indefinitely block the open section above a long goal, thus preventing the descoring of blocks, if the robot a. does not come in contact with any part of the goal b. is touching the goal itself such as with a piece of custom plastic

Thanks!

Could I please get some guidance on how to practically referee the goalkeeping part of SG10 ?

<SG10> says:

A Robot can only reach into any open portion of a Goal to legally move Blocks (e.g., into or out of the Control Zone or the entire Goal). If a Head Referee sees a Robot that is Goalkeeping in the Driver Controlled Period of a Head-to-Head Match, that Robot should be verbally warned away and should receive an SG10 Violation if it remains.

This reads as "the second a referee tells a robot to get out of the goal, they have to give a minor violation to that robot". Very often I've given and seen other refs give the verbal command for robots to get out of the goal but almost never have I seen that result in a violation. I think practically referees have handled it by telling a robot to get out of a goal and then giving a fair/reasonable amount of time for the robot to exit the goal. If the robot complies then there is no violation and if the robot stays in for too long or them staying has some sort of game score changing consequence then they get a violation.

1. Is "the second a referee tells a robot to get out of the goal, they have to give a minor violation to that robot" the correct interpretation/practical application of SG10 Goalkeeping?
2. Is "telling a robot to get out of a goal and then giving a fair/reasonable amount of time for the robot to exit the goal. If the robot complies then there is no violation and if the robot stays in for too long after being told to leave or them staying has some sort of game score changing consequence then they get a violation" the correct way to handle refereeing the goalkeeping part of SG10
3. Are referees supposed to wait until a robot has been in the goal for too long and then verbally tell the robot to get out of the goal and give them the violation?
4. Is giving a verbal warning a requirement to getting the violation or can a robot get a goalkeeping violation even if the referee didn't tell them to get out of the goal in that moment?
5. I've also seen a couple teams try to stay in the goal as long as possible and until the referee tells them to leave so they can try to maximize their time in the goal. Do you have any advice or guidance for how to handle this scenario? It seems different than a team accidentally staying in the goal for a little too long as this scenario feels like intentionally trying to wait until they are getting the violation or just accepting the violation as a trade for being in the goal longer.

During the Driver Control period, if a Robot uses a static or passive mechanism (such as a piece of plastic or metal) that reaches into an open portion of a Goal, as shown below, and the Robot is not actively scoring or descoring Blocks, but the mechanism physically blocks Blocks from entering or exiting the Goal, preventing either Alliance from legally changing the score, does this constitute Goalkeeping under the Goalkeeping definition and <SG10>, and therefore result in a violation, regardless of whether the Robot is capable of scoring or is in possession of a Block? <SG10>

Given that <SG10> clarifies that reaching into any open portion of a Goal while not attempting to change the score through legal means is prohibited, should this interaction be ruled a Goalkeeping violation? Additionally, based on Q&A 2791, Keeping your mechanism there while the Robot isn't actively moving Blocks inside the Goal is considered anchoring, should maintaining this mechanism inside the open portion of the Goal as shown in the image below, thereby continuously denying access and preventing legal scoring or descoring be ruled as Goalkeeping and a violation?

Many thanks.

Hello GDC - Happy 2026 / Thanks for your feedback and guidance

The Rules ...

<SG10>

Q&A References = 2879 (discusses SG10 and implements a 10pt MA consideration)

The PROBLEM – Blue robot violates SG10 with regards to having a mechanism inside and stationary in the long goal impeding scoring of Red Robot, OR a Blue robot Violates SG10 by reaching into the enclosed section interacting with a scored cube, etc. … this occurs multiple times in the same match … lets say 2-3 times

The QUESTION - In the Example above - Is the Is the 10pt Match affecting consideration 10 per match where a violation occurs (only 10pt above) OR to be considered a 10pt cumulative per violation assessment in the same match. (20-30pt above)

Thanks again for your time and consideration

Drew Marston

<SG10>

Hello GDC,

Within Q&A 2826, it is given a scenario where Robot[A] and Robot[B] are in a “standstill”, with both robots attempting to descore. In this case both robots are given an <SG10> violation as both would be considered “Goalkeeping”. Another scenario is given where Robot[A] is not inside the goal while Robot[B] is, and Robot[B] is given the violation.

Our question is if Robot[A] is scoring and Robot[B] is concurrently “descoring” that same goal (blocks are considered moving in all scenarios) would Robot[A] and/or/neither Robot[B] be given an <SG10> violation in the following:

• Scenario A: Robot[A] is unable to score due to blocks being pushed toward it from the long goal by Robot[B], not allowing Robot[A] to remove the blocks from its systems into the goal
• Scenario B: Robot[A] is able to output the blocks from its systems but the blocks being scored fall out of Robot[A] onto the floor due to the force applied from Robot[B]
• Scenario C: Robot[A] is able to output the blocks from its systems and some blocks are able to make it inside the goal, but the extra blocks being scored fall out of Robot[A] onto the floor due to the force applied from Robot[B]
• Scenario D: Robot[A] is able to score blocks, yet the blocks are instantly removed from the goal due to the descoring of robot[B]

Thank you for your time.

<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>.

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

<SG10>

Many teams have deployed an arm that reaches into the long goal as they drive toward the enclosed portion of the goal to score/descore blocks.

1. Some of these arms have an angled insert so they definitely touch a block that is within the fully enclosed portion of the long goal. (see picture)

2. Even a perfectly vertical insert, when they come to the end of the open part while pushing a block, would touch a block that is fully enclosed. (see picture, not a great angle of the photo, but the block is completely in the enclose section while be touched by a vertical insert at the end of the open portion of the long goal).

3. Many of these robots are driving fast which would cause the vertical insert to touch a block in the enclosed portion as the robots crash hard into the enclosed portion and the momentum causes it to rock backwards.

All three of these interactions seem to violate "<SG10> Don’t reach inside enclosed sections of Goals. Robots are not permitted to directly contact Blocks that are fully within enclosed sections of Long Goals." Is this interpretation correct?

If any or all of these are a violation, following the violation flow chart, how do we determine if this is match affecting?