The official VEX V5 Robotics Competition Question & Answer system has closed for this season.

Official Q&A: VEX V5 Robotics Competition 2024-2025: High Stakes

Usage Guidelines All Questions

2511: SG4 Intentional Strategy


Matthew Cimini
6-Feb-2025

<SG4> states that " blatantly intentional and/or Match Affecting Violations (especially during Elimination Matches) may still immediately escalate to a Major Violation at the Head Referee’s discretion."

My question is how one would categorize an "intentional" violation. In one particular example, a robot is holding a mobile goal and drives directly into the positive corners where 4 rings are currently stacked (as in the initial field setup). They repeatedley back up and drive forward to bash into the rings and make them move. The intention of this robot is to clear the corner of the rings to place their mobile goal.

Should this "bashing corner rings" strategy be considered an intentional violation of <SG4> if one of the rings leave the field?

In this example, the strategy is intentionally trying to remove rings from the corner, but not intentionally trying to remove them from the field per se. How should this be ruled?

Answered by committee
13-Feb-2025

Although the underlying rule is different, our logic from Q&A 2420 applies here.

In your example, the Robot is trying to make space for a Mobile Goal, and is not intentionally trying to fling Rings out of the Field. We wouldn't consider this intentional. Similarly, if a Robot is trying to descore an opponent's Top Ring from a Wall Stake and knocks it out of the Field, we wouldn't see that as intentional (it's not what they were trying to do).

If a Robot picks up two opponent Rings and tosses them over the field wall, we'd call that blatantly intentional.

As always, the Head Referee is responsible for determining intent within the context of the Match and the violating Robot's actions.