Q&A

In Manual Version 2.0: SG6 it states at the beginning of the rule:

Rings on the Alliance Mobile Goal are "safe". Strategies intended to remove Rings which are Scored on or in an opposing Alliance Mobile Goal are prohibited. Examples of "intentional strategies" could include, but are not limited to:

This makes me believe that the intent of the rule is only for Alliance Mobile Goals and not Neutral Mobile Goals, but in the examples it says:

Robot mechanisms or actions solely intended to "lift off" Rings from Mobile Goal Branches.

Robot mechanisms or actions solely intended to "scoop out" Rings from Mobile Goal Bases.

"Knocking over" or otherwise forcefully manipulating an Alliance Mobile Goal such that Rings become removed.

I have 2 questions regarding the wording of SG6:

1. I want to know if the reading that the first two actions apply to Alliance and Neutral Mobile Goals or just Alliance Mobile Goals?

2. I just want to ask again from Q&A 802 if intentionally tipping a Neutral Mobile Goal to remove Rings is allowed? The answer was yes from 802, but I just want to see if the answer is still the same?

Would it be considered legal to tip over a goal (like an enemy home goal) in order to dump out the rings?

The idea would be to tip it over (without obstructing other robots) dumping the rings out then putting the goal back sitting up. So it would only be tipped over for a moment.

**Current Rule <SG6> Rings on the Alliance Mobile Goal are “safe”. Strategies intended to remove Rings which are Scored on or in an opposing Alliance Mobile Goal are prohibited. Examples of “intentional strategies” could include, but are not limited to: • Robot mechanisms or actions solely intended to “lift off” Rings from Mobile Goal Branches. • Robot mechanisms or actions solely intended to “scoop out” Rings from Mobile Goal Bases. • “Knocking over” or otherwise forcefully manipulating an Alliance Mobile Goal such that Rings become removed.

Viewed in Tournament Teams tipped an opposing alliance's balance beam over (which held Alliance Goals with rings on them).

Question Regardless of rings falling off the posts or out of the base, is this considered 'forcefully manipulating an Alliance Mobile Goal such that rings can become removed' or simply just removing the opposing alliance's goal from the platform?

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?

Is it allowable to tip over the mobile goal and descore all the Ringles scored by your opponent? Rule <SG6> states that Rings on the Alliance Mobile Goal are “safe”, but it appears that scored Ringles on the neutral goals can be descored. The tall mobile goal is top-heavy once the Rigles are on it, and it is easily tipped over.

A student asked if this ball was scored, and I could not give an answer. With more teams this year putting fields in rooms that hardly fit them, this is happening more and more frequently.

Scored

A Ball status. A Ball is considered Scored in a Goal if it is not touching a Robot of the same color as the Ball and meets all of the following criteria. -The Ball is fully or partially within the outer edge of the Goal. -The Ball is fully below the upper edge of the Goal. -The Ball is not contacting the foam tiles outside of the Goal.

Clarification of what determines “fully or partially within the outer edge of the Goal” https://events.vex.com/VRC/2020-2021/QA/690

LRT9

This rule is a modification of the definition of Scored. In a Live Remote Tournament, a Ball may be considered Scored in a Goal if it is still touching a Robot of either Alliance color.

Clarification of LRT9 https://events.vex.com/VRC/2020-2021/QA/731

SG6

Keep Balls in the field. Teams may not intentionally remove Balls from the field. While Balls may accidentally leave the field when attempting to Score, doing so intentionally or repeatedly would be a violation of this rule. Balls that leave the field during Match play, intentionally or unintentionally, will be returned to the field at the location nearest the point at which they exited. Referees will return the Balls to the field when it is deemed safe to do so, at the leisure of the referee.

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.

S2

Stay inside the field. If a Robot is completely out-of-bounds (outside the playing field), it will be Disabled for the remainder of the Match. Note: The intent is NOT to penalize Robots for having mechanisms that inadvertently cross the field perimeter during normal game play

The image attached meets the definition of Scored due to Q&A 690, meets the modified definition of Scored in LRT9, and follows Q&A 731. SG6 determines if this ball is scored.

The precedent that I believe we have is the following:

1. Turning Point, balls that were caught in the net but behind the field perimeter
2. Tower Takeover, stacks that leaned outside of the volume of the field perimeter.
3. Round Up, rings on posts on the walls
4. Gateway, 1107B putting objects on top of goals
5. Toss Up, big balls on top of chutes
6. Skyrise, cubes on outer posts
7. Turning Point, high caps

My question is the following:

1. How far out of the volume of the field does a ball have to be for it to be considered out of the field, and needs a Referee to return the ball "to the field at the location nearest the point at which they exited"?

2. Is the bounding box for Robots leaving the field (S2) and Balls leaving the field (SG6) different?

Thank you for your time, and thank you to Brad Lauer and the REC Foundation for helping fix the issue I was experiencing when posting this Q&A.

Earlier you ruled on the question below regarding SG6. Would the same ruling apply to teams playing defense on bots trying to set a stack in the unprotected corner. The scoring robot has the tray verticle or nearly verticle and a bot from the opposing alliance comes and rams them sending cubes off the field. The way they are set up there is nowhere else for the cubes to go. Would this be considered intentional. They may repeat this couple of times per match.

Cubes leaving the field 248A 1 month ago In Autonomous, often teams put a smaller stack in their goal zones. Once drive control starts they knock over the stack to create a larger stack in driver control, often they do so with disregard for elements leaving the field. Should we see an attempt to keep them in play? If there isn't an attempt to keep them in play, should this strategy receive warnings and with repeated occurrences potentially lead to a DQ?

<SG6> Keep Cubes in the field. Teams may not intentionally remove Cubes from the field. While Cubes may accidentally leave the field when attempting to Score, doing so intentionally or repeatedly would be a violation of this rule.

Answered by Game Design Committee If there isn't an attempt to keep them in play, should this strategy receive warnings and with repeated occurrences potentially lead to a DQ?

This interpretation is correct. The limits for "intentionally" and "repeatedly" in SG6 are at the Head Referee's discretion, given the context of a given Match and/or event. If they observe Teams attempting this strategy, we would advise Head Referees to provide clear warnings regarding this risk.

<SG6>

1. At the start of the match, the robot approaches the Pyramid Goal while already possessing one Bean Bag. During this process, it contacts a Bean Bag on the floor, causing it to end up in the position shown in the photo. Would this be considered a violation of the Possession and Plowing rules?

2. If a Bean Bag is lying on the floor as shown in the photo, and the robot drives over it several times while already possessing another Bean Bag , would this be considered a violation of the Possession and Plowing rules?

(https://events.vex.com/storage/markdown/uploads/GChobugKxr1juVGyCEsylEVwSJUBzMjMknpjII7r.jpg)

Our robot features a structure at the rear of the chassis consisting of a High Strength Shaft with two standoffs mounted on either side, creating a slightly concave/U-shaped profile. There is a Polycarbonate shaped like the diagram installed between the two standoffs, which sits nearly flush with the field, making it impossible to scoop or lift any Pins or Cups. Rule <SG6a> states: "Plowing multiple Scoring Objects is permitted. Teams which employ Plowing strategies are encouraged to clearly demonstrate that none of the Scoring Objects are being Possessed, e.g., by using a flat face of the Robot with no active mechanisms."

Q1. Would pushing multiple Pins and/or Cups along the floor using this rear structure be considered legal Plowing, or would this concave shape be viewed as "Possession" (or carrying/holding) of those Scoring Objects?

Q2. Does using a passive concave boundary (like two standoffs with the PC sheet) automatically constitute Possession, or is it evaluated strictly based on whether the objects are trapped, lifted, or actively controlled?

<SG6>

SG6 limits Possession to a maximum of one (1) Pin and one (1) Cup, and SG6a clarifies that Plowing multiple Scoring Objects is permitted.

Appendix B defines Possession as a status where "a Robot's change in direction would result in controlled movement of the Scoring Object," typically requires at least one of the following:

• the object is fully supported
• moved in a preferred direction inside a concave face...
• held against the Floor or a Field Element.

Plowing is defined as intentionally moving an object in a preferred direction with a flat or convex face or with another Scoring Object (emphasis mine).

Consider a stack consisting of several Pins and Cups. A Robot uses a concave mechanism such as a claw, to grab a single Scoring Object at the bottom of that stack. The bottom cup or pin is contacting the robot and meets the definition of possession, however the remaining pins and cups only meet the first dot point, and is "moving with another Scoring Object."

Is the Robot considered to be Possessing only the single Scoring Object it has directly grasped, with the remaining stacked objects treated as plowed? Or, because the Robot's change in direction results in controlled movement of every object in the stack, is the Robot considered to be Possessing all of those Pins and Cups placing it in Violation of SG6 once the count exceeds one Pin and/or one Cup?

<SG6><SC6><SG6> clarifications; there are four points listed here that we are looking for clarification on.

Sometimes when loading a pin, the loader places it in the load zone but then when they release the pin, it shifts away from the beam. This would be considered an improper load. <SG6> b

1. We want to make sure we are informing our students the proper way they should delt with this situation.

It is our thought that the loader should say “Misload” then retrieve the pin and reload it. As per <SG6> f

Our concern is that a ref may think they are in violation of <SG6> e

Our students work hard to try to make sure this does not happen, but accidents are inevitable.

Can the community provide guidance as to what the team loader should do when this situation happens?

2. What should happen if it is loaded as above and before the loader can retrieve the pin a robot takes possession of it.

Should it…

A) Sill be retrieved and reloaded; if so, can the loader retrieve it directly from the robot.

B) Just be released by robot, left unconnected, and not touching a robot at end. This way, making it not score affecting; as to avoid a possible major violation.

C) Other; please clarify the proper actions the team/loader should take.

2a) Is there any “point of no return” where a loader can no longer retrieve an improperly loaded pin? If so, what is the point beyond which it can no longer be retrieved and reloaded?

3. What is the proper way our refs should deal with a misload during an event.

A) Instruct the loader to retrieve and reload it? If so, would it matter if the robot had already interacted with the improperly loaded pin?

B) Warn the team is an improper load and just keep track of the pin until the end of the match then follow the guidelines provided in the game manual to determine what type of violation it is.

C) Just keep track of the pin until the end of the match, then follow the guidelines provided in the game manual to determine what type of violation it is.

D) Other; please clarify the proper actions the Ref should take.

4. What does “retrieve” mean; Simply lift the pin so it is not contacting anything but the loaders hand or does the pin need to clear the field perimeter before being reloaded properly.

The Violation Notes for rule <SG6> state that:

It is expected that most Violations of this rule will be accidental. In accidental cases that end up being Score Affecting (i.e., an illegally-Loaded Scoring Object is Connected to another Scoring Object), the first occurrence during a Qualification Match may be treated as a Minor Violation and a “final notice” that any future Violation will result in Disqualification for the Match.

This note, along with the other Violation Notes, cover Violations of this rule that are Score Affecting, repeated, intentional, and/or egregious. However, there is no specific guidance on Violations that do not fit any of the criteria listed above. The first sentence of this note seems to imply that an accidental and non Score Affecting Violation of <SG6> should still be recorded as a Minor Violation of this rule. According to Figure V-2, a team that commits an accidental and non Score Affecting Violation of <SG6> in three or more Qualification Matches should be assessed as a Major Violation and a DQ for the Match, since the Violation Notes provide no specific guidance for these kinds of Violations. Is this a correct interpretation of this rule?

If so, which of the following actions below should be considered an accidental and non Score Affecting Violation of this rule?

1. A Team illegally loads a Scoring Object so that it is a small distance away from the Load Zone (< 1"). A Head Referee instructs the Team to reload the Scoring Object and the Team complies, reloading the Scoring Object legally.
2. Same as 1, but the Team does this multiple times during the Match.
3. A Team illegally loads a Scoring Object so that it is a small distance away from the Load Zone (< 1"). A Head Referee instructs the Team to reload the Scoring Object, but the Team does not comply. The illegally loaded Scoring Object is not Score Affecting.
4. Same as 3, but the Team does this multiple times during the Match.
5. A Team legally loads a Scoring Object. After the Loader has released the Scoring Object, they reach back in the field and adjust the position of the Scoring Object. If this is not an <SG6> Violation, would this be a <GG4> Violation?

Is it legal for the Loader to hold multiple Pins in one hand or arm and load them one at a time with the other hand granted the other pins are not breaking the plane of the field (SG6), or must the Pins waiting to be loaded remain on the floor at all times?

For Skills matches, do the Pins need to be set up exactly as shown in Figure RSC3-1 (including the color order and not stacked), or can the Loader rearrange or stack them in a different color order before the match starts?

Thank you!

<SG6>

During a match, a pin was illegally loaded due to being a significant distance (several inches) from the load zone, violating <SG6b>. The pin was not retrieved and reintroduced per <SG6f>, and was subsequently used to create a three-color stack so therefore became score affecting. According to the red violation note,

It is expected that most Violations of this rule will be accidental. In accidental cases that end up being Score Affecting (i.e., an illegally-Loaded Scoring Object is Connected to another Scoring Object), the first occurrence during a Qualification Match may be treated as a Minor Violation and a “final notice” that any future Violation will result in Disqualification for the Match.

the team was given a minor violation and final notice, since it was the team's first occurrence.

Now to the part I'm not clear on: should the three-color stack that included the illegally-loaded pin be counted toward the score for the match?

In this case, I made the call that the three-color stack would not be counted, understanding that per <T1> this was the "right" call at the time. After making the call, however, I began to wonder if the three-color stack should have been counted, or if possibly only the illegally-loaded pin itself shouldn't have been counted, leaving a two-color stack that should have been counted.

<SG7> Don’t cross the Autonomous Line, and don’t interfere with your opponents’ actions. During the Autonomous Period, Robots may not contact foam tiles, Blocks, or Field Elements which are on the opposing Alliance’s side of the Autonomous Line. <R8> Engage with the Autonomous Line at your own risk. Any Robot who engages with Blocks that begin the Match on the Autonomous Line should be aware that opponent Robots may also choose to do the same. Per <GG12> and <GG13>, Teams are responsible for the actions of their Robots at all times.

We have seen different ways of ruling contact of blocks during the autonomous period and would like further clarification. Below are three scenarios and accompanying videos to clarify the rule.

Scenario 1: A blue alliance's robot, during autonomous, intakes scoring elements in contact with the autonomous line under the long goals, and on their side of the autonomous line. The blue alliance lightly contacts the blocks of the red alliance on the autonomous line, No other violations occur. Scenario 1 Video

Scenario 2: A blue alliance's robot, during autonomous, intakes scoring elements in contact with the autonomous line under the long goals, and on their side of the autonomous line. The blue alliance strikes contacts the blocks of the red alliance on the autonomous line, knocking the blocks well away from their starting position, No blocks contact red robots or other blocks. No other violations occur. Scenario 2 Video

Scenario 3: A blue alliance's robot, during autonomous, intakes scoring elements in contact with the autonomous line under the long goals, and on their side of the autonomous line. The blue alliance use a match loading mechanism to gather the blue blocks, but lightly contacts the blocks of the red alliance on the autonomous line, No other violations occur. Scenario 3 Video

How should a referee rule in each of these instances. Thank you for your time, we look forward to your response.

We have a question regarding <SG6b>, which states: "The Scoring Object must be placed in contact with the VEX IQ beam attached to the Floor." When you say "contact," does this mean that as long as the pin is touching any part of the beam, the requirement is satisfied?

We are considering placing the pin on top of the beam (as shown in our picture), and would like to clarify this rule before we proceed.

Thank you!

<SG6>

Can the red team robot load pins introduced by the blue team at the blue team load zone (and vice versa)?

<SG6>

"Contact" is the primary criterion given for loading zone rules. Pins must be introduced contacting the zone. Robots cannot be contacting the zone when pins are introduced. Robots cannot be contacting the pin when introduced.

1. Is it possible to reliably introduce a pin adjacent to the beam which is the loading zone? or to be safe does the pin have to be placed on top of the loading zone beam? We have noticed that often when we try to place a pin adjacent to the loading zone, it vibrates or spins slightly on release and ends up not quite contacting the loading zone by maybe 1mm or less. Is this legal? a violation? or really up to ref discretion?

2. parts of our robot are close to the ground, but just high enough that they can pass over the loading zone without contacting it. Is it permissible to demonstrate this clearance to the judges before a match so we aren't erroneously assigned a violation? or should we assume that if its too close to easily see we will be penalized and we shouldn't do it? In line with this, if our robot has a claw that stretches over the loading zone, but clearly doesn't contact it, is it permissible to place a pin directly into the space between the open claw touching the loading zone, or will judge be unable to see that we didn't in fact touch the claw with the pin on the way down and we should assume that since they can't see, we shouldn't use this strategy? In both cases clarifying our intentions with the judges before a match could be beneficial.

<SG6> SG6 does not specify the number of pin to be imported simultaneously. Can I import multiple pin simultaneously。

Hello GDC!

Teams more and more have been trying to score on mobile goals that are being held by other teams, sometimes doing this while already in control of a mobile goal.

<G17> says teams are not allowed to use scoring objects “as gloves”, but the red box also says this shouldn’t be taken to an extreme.

At what point does scoring on a mobile goal with a lady brown while already in control of a mobile goal become a violation of SG6?

Relevant rules: <SG6>, <G17>

Thank you for your time! :D