Robotics Education & Competition Foundation
Inspiring students, one robot at a time.

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

2548: Interacting with another robot's mobile goal (Q&A 2026 clarification)


8889A
17-Feb-2025

In the answer to Q&A 2026, it was stated that

a Robot that is lifting, raising, or otherwise interacting with another Robot that is in Possession of one or more Scoring Objects is not considered to be in Possession of that Robot's Scoring Objects

However, this only covers scenarios where a robot is interacting with another robot and does not explicitly cover the case where a robot directly interacts with another robot's scoring objects.

In a hypothetical scenario, Robot A has mobile goal 1 being possessed in their back clamp while Robot B is also possessing mobile goal 2 in a similar manner. Robot A deploys a mechanism that directly grabs onto the rim of mobile goal 2, and Robot A uses this to pull mobile goal 2 (and Robot B along with it, as it is still clamped to mobile goal 2).

1a: Should there be a pinning count called here, as Robot B is being pulled by Robot A despite their ability to drop mobile goal 2 at any moment? 1b: Is Robot A double possessing, as they are directly pulling mobile goal 2 (which is also in possession by Robot B) while in possession of mobile goal 1? 1c: If Robot B releases mobile goal 2 and Robot A continues to drag mobile goal 2 for a short distance before the driver reacts and releases mobile goal 2, would this be a major, minor, or no violation of <SG6>? Robot B may have forced Robot A into a penalty because the driver of Robot A could not have reacted instantaneously, but Robot A also assumes this risk of double possession when they use this strategy.

Finally, if the answer to 1b is yes, what about an analogous version of Scenario B from Q&A 2520? That is, instead of grabbing onto the rim of mobile goal 2, Robot A uses a 2-bar mechanism to score a ring onto mobile goal 2 while it is in possession of robot B.

Answered by committee
20-Feb-2025

1a. This is not an example of Holding. Robot B has the option of releasing their Possessed Mobile Goal to free themselves.

1b. Yes, Robot A would be in Violation of <SG6> for Possession of two Mobile Goals as soon as the Robot grabs the second Mobile Goal. Mobile Goal 2 is simultaneously Possessed by both Robots in this scenario.

1c. As soon as Robot A is in Possession of two Mobile Goals as part of this intentional grabbing interaction, Robot A has intentionally violated <SG6>, and should receive a Major Violation and Disqualification for the Match.

See Q&A 2184 for some legal examples of defensive Mobile Goal interactions that do not involve a Robot taking Possession of a second Mobile Goal.

Finally, if the answer to 1b is yes, what about an analogous version of Scenario B from Q&A 2520? That is, instead of grabbing onto the rim of mobile goal 2, Robot A uses a 2-bar mechanism to score a ring onto mobile goal 2 while it is in possession of robot B.

The same answer applies here. This scenario could technically meet the definition of Possession, either directly or through <G17>. A Robot that Scores a Ring on one Mobile Goal while in Possession of another Mobile Goal is assuming the risk of Possessing two Mobile Goals at the same time and violating <SG6>. However, it is important to note that scoring a Ring on a Mobile Goal does not always result in Possessing that Mobile Goal. Possession can occur based on the Robot's resulting control over the Mobile Goal due to the positioning of the Possessed Scored Ring around the Mobile Goal Stake. We have revised our answer in Q&A 2520 to better match this one.