RobotEvents.com
Robotics Education & Competition Foundation
Inspirando estudiantes, un robot a la vez.

The official VEX V5 Robotics Competition Question & Answer system has closed for this season. If your team is planning to attend the 2025 VEX Robotics World Championship, you may submit game and event-related questions to the 2025 VEX Robotics World Championship Driver's Meeting Question Collection Form, which is available at this link: https://forms.gle/VpoRH5GmhktejJ8R8.

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

Usage Guidelines All Questions

2181: Match Affecting Calculations - Opponents Goal Removed from Corner Via Illegal Possession

Julie Robbins (Event Partner)
9-Oct-2024

<SG6>b states "Plowing multiple Mobile Goals is permitted. However, Plowing an additional Mobile Goal while also Possessing one is considered a Violation of this rule due to the extremely high likelihood of accidental/implied Possession. Teams which employ Plowing strategies are encouraged to clearly demonstrate that none of the Mobile Goals are being Possessed, e.g., by using a flat face of the Robot with no active mechanisms."

Scenario: A goal filled with 6 BLUE rings is placed in a positive corner. A RED robot possessing a goal filled with 6 rings drives to the positive corner and pushes the goal filled with BLUE rings out of the corner, breaking the (SG6)b rule of possession by plowing a goal while possessing another. After removing BLUE's goal by illegal possession, RED then places their own GOAL with 6 rings in the corner. RED has now removed 8 points from the blue teams score and added 8 points to their own score (a difference of 16 points). When considering if the violation is match effecting, would you:

  1. Consider it an 8-point difference since the blue goal was removed while possessing two goals (violation of possession), but the red goal was placed in the corner since the red robot was not longer in possession of two goal, and therefore was not an illegal action.
  2. Consider it a 16-point difference since the blue goal was removed while possessing two goals (violation of possession), and the red goal was placed in the corner that would not have been available if the red robot hadn't removed BLUE's goal illegally, thus resulting in an action would be considered an egregious or clearly intentional violation.
  3. Or another option not listed.

<SG6>

SG6  
Answered by committee
10-Oct-2024

As described in the definition of Violation in section 2 of the game manual,

To determine whether a Violation may have been Match Affecting, check whether the Team who committed the Violation won or lost the Match. If they did not win the Match, then the Violation could not have been Match Affecting, and it was very likely a Minor Violation.

If the red Alliance loses the Match, your scenario cannot be a Match Affecting Violation. It should be recorded as a Minor <SG6> Violation.

If the red Alliance wins the Match, the Violation Note for <SG6> applies:

Any egregious or clearly intentional Violation by an Alliance who wins the Match will be considered a Major Violation.

No Match Affecting calculation is needed to determine the outcome of your scenario. If the red Alliance wins the Match in your scenario they will receive a Major Violation and Disqualification for the Match.