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

The Q&A is closed for the 2021-2022 season. Any rule changes or clarifications pertaining to the 2022 VEX Robotics World Championship will be included in the April 5 Game Manual Update. Teams attending VEX Worlds who wish to pre-submit questions for the driver's meeting should have received a contact form via email; if not, please contact your REC Foundation Team Engagement Manager for more information.

Official Q&A: VRC 2021-2022: Tipping Point

Usage Guidelines All Questions

SG2 SG10 2 Goals a Robot and a Slippery slope…


Drew Marston (Event Partner)
4 months ago

ISSUE #1 = IN a situation where I’m seeing robots with Mobile goals under controlled / clamped on both the front and back of the robot with one or both sides elevating to put onto platform or interact with opposing side platform. The robot itself is within SG 2 spec <36”, BUT as Fully extended the end to end measurement <goal><robot><goal> is greater than 36”+ QUESTION - is this in violation of the SG2/SG10 as described in Q&A 909 (SG2 and SG10 and Q&A909) are included below).

NOTE = From view of SG 2 figure 22 the 36” requirement appears applicable to “robot only” not necessarily tied to SG10 (and perhaps a further example of G3 common sense…)

www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/909

ISSUE #2 = If this is violation <goal><robot><goal> >36” interacts with a platform with one of the clamped goals to push down on platform / de score an elevated goal for the opposing platform but the goal remains in alliance zone - would this be a 20pts in determining a match affecting situation?

You Tube Link to match example - https://youtu.be/VIN3TOKgcIQ?t=25718

ISSUE #3 = If this is violation <goal><robot><goal> >36” interacts with a platform with one of its clamped goals to tip its own platform to give it access to the platform to elevate / balance with it and the 2 goals - would this be 110pts in determining a match affecting situation?

<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” (457.2 mm) 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 22.

Figure 22: Examples of Legal and Illegal “point-to-point” expansions. Because the robot above has a “point-to-point” measurement greater than 36”, it would not pass inspection. 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.

Answered by committee

Thank you for your detailed question, and including relevant quotes / examples. In short - the type of interaction described by this question is not intended to be considered a violation of SG2 via SG10. The actions performed in the linked videos should be considered legal.

This question appears to rely upon an unintended interpretation of the response provided in Q&A post 909. That response is partially quoted here, with a portion bolded for emphasis:

This scenario could escalate if the Scoring Object was used to accomplish an action that would be otherwise illegal if attempted by a greater-than-36" Robot mechanism. Examples could include, but are not limited to:

  • Defending or Trapping an opponent
  • Hoarding
  • Manipulating a Platform

Rule SG10 partially reads as follows, with a portion bolded for emphasis:

<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 emphasis on the previous Q&A response, and in SG10 itself, is intended to refer to illegal gameplay actions. There are many possible ways to illegally interact with a Platform, namely SG3 and SG7. The actions depicted in the linked videos would generally be considered "standard gameplay", not illegal actions.

This question is a pretty good example of the reason for including the following portion of SG10:

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.

(another example of this philosophy would be.... a Robot which leaves a Mobile Goal on a Platform is not considered in violation of G5 via SG10)