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

2520: Possession / SG6 Clarification

338A
10-Feb-2025

Possession Definition:

Possession – A Robot / Scoring Object status. A Scoring Object is considered Possessed by a Robot if a Robot’s change in direction would result in controlled movement of the Scoring Object. This typically requires at least one of the following to be true:

  • The Scoring Object is fully supported by the Robot.

  • The Robot is moving the Scoring Object in a preferred direction with a concave face of the Robot (or inside of a concave angle formed by multiple mechanisms/faces of the Robot).

  • The Robot is holding the Scoring Object against the Floor or a Field Element.

Within this context, I present three different scenarios.

Scenario A: A robot has a mobile goal sitting in the concave face of their robot where their clamp is, but the clamp is not activated. The robot is pushing this mobile goal against another mobile goal, which is being pushed against the field perimeter (considered a field element per game manual definition). This results in the 2nd mobile goal changing its "placed" status in a corner (either no longer being placed, or becoming placed).

Even though the first mobile goal is not clamped (being held by/fully supported by the robot) would this still count as being in possession of the first mobile goal (and thus an SG6 violation due to the 2nd goal being pushed/changing "placed" status) under " The Robot is moving the Scoring Object in a preferred direction with a concave face of the Robot (or inside of a concave angle formed by multiple mechanisms/faces of the Robot)." and/or "The Robot is holding the Scoring Object against the Floor or a Field Element." (with said field element either being the wall for the 2nd mobile goal or the 2nd mobile goal for the first)?

Scenario B: https://youtu.be/JDXN007mvOk A robot has a mobile goal clamped (fully supported within the back of their robot) and uses an arm to reach out the front and score a ring on a different mobile goal (within the context of this Q&A, this goal that was scored on was at the time placed in a positive corner). The mechanism was a 2-bar, meaning it formed a concave surface around the stake of the mobile goal/ring that was scored on that stake, even though since they did not turn it did not make contact with the stake itself.

Does this count as possession of that mobile goal as it was being scored on, and thus double-possession and an SG6 violation due to the goal on the back of their robot? If so, what would be the application for this? Would it be due to the concave surface that the stake existed within coupled with G17 (use elements to play the game, not as "gloves," where the ring that was scored on the mobile goal makes the touching of the stake transitive/carries through in that sense) or does the ring not matter in this context?

Scenario C: https://youtu.be/3GJaq3Xff7c

A robot has no mobile goal clamped in their robot, but puts their 2-bar arm out and uses that coupled with the front of their robot (which forms a concave surface due to the gap between the chassis where the intake hole is) through turning to push two mobile goals (one of which was placed in a corner and then became unplaced).

Is this considered possession of one of those mobile goals (as it was within the 2-bar/front of the robot, even though it was not being held) and thus an SG6 voilation?

SG6  
Answered by committee
13-Feb-2025

It is impossible to issue a blanket answer beyond what is written in the Game Manual that encompasses all possible situations based on snapshot descriptions (or low-quality videos) of a hypothetical or partial Match, Robot, mechanism, or interaction. These rulings must be made by the Head Referee based on the context of the Match.

However, absent any other case-by-case context or extenuating circumstances, we can share some very general thoughts on these scenarios.

Scenario A: The first Mobile Goal is being moved in a preferred direction with a concave face of the Robot, so is Possessed. The second Mobile Goal is being moved in preferred direction with another scoring object, so is being Plowed. This is a clear Violation of <SG6> clause B. Escalation to a Major Violation is fully justified because the Mobile Goal is Placed/un-Placed while in Violation of <SG6>.

Scenario B: This scenario could technically meet the definition of Possession, "A Scoring Object is considered Possessed by a Robot if a Robot’s change in direction would result in controlled movement of the Scoring Object," either directly or through <G17>. It's risky. 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.

Scenario C: This is another risky choice that forces the Head Referee to make a judgment call based on a glimpse from a bad perspective, and this Robot likely will not receive benefit of the doubt.

Note: This answer was revised on February 21, 2025 to add the clarification in bolded text.