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

2330: SG11, Placement, and Stuck Robots

30410V
27-Nov-2024

During a game, BLUE1 became stuck on a ring while holding a mobile goal. The robot was inside the positive corner. The mobile goal was also stuck on a ring and was within the volume of the positive corner (they were attempting to place it), but was not touching the ground. They were stuck there for 45 seconds, including the 15 seconds of positive corner protection. Here were the rules questions that arose from this:

  1. Was the mobile goal considered in the positive corner since it was not contacting the floor tiles or the tape?
  2. Was BLUE1 in violation of SG11 if they did not operate their mobile goal grabbing mechanism to attempt to drop the goal after SG11 takes effect? Would operating the mechanism have made this an SG11 violation?
  3. The mobile goal not being placed meant this was not a match affecting violation but if the goal would have been considered placed, it would have been match affecting. Given that this was not match affecting, should this have been a minor violation or a major violation?
SC5   SG11  
Answered by committee
27-Nov-2024
  1. Was the mobile goal considered in the positive corner since it was not contacting the floor tiles or the tape?

If the Mobile Goal was not touching the Floor or a white tape line, then that Mobile Goal did not meet all of the criteria to be considered Placed in a Corner. See <SC5> clause A.

  1. Was BLUE1 in violation of SG11 if they did not operate their mobile goal grabbing mechanism to attempt to drop the goal after SG11 takes effect? Would operating the mechanism have made this an SG11 violation?

As described above, the Mobile Goal was not Placed. Because BLUE1 kept the Mobile Goal raised and never dropped it, there was no <SG11> Violation in this scenario. If BLUE1 had operated their mechanism and dropped the Mobile Goal, resulting in the Mobile Goal becoming Placed in a Positive Corner during the <SG11> protection period, then BLUE1 would have intentionally violated <SG11> resulting in a Major Violation and Disqualification for the Match.

  1. The mobile goal not being placed meant this was not a match affecting violation but if the goal would have been considered placed, it would have been match affecting. Given that this was not match affecting, should this have been a minor violation or a major violation?

Because there was no Placed Mobile Goal in your scenario, there was no Violation of <SG11>.