Weird, it was up just a few minutes ago.
who posted the video^ @EasierSaidThanDone
@aaronlucas what i dont understand is my team was another heavily defensive robot at the tournament and we did the same strat of dragging the mobile goals to a corner however we were never dq for doing that but just scolded by the refs
@meng honestly if your worried about the rules for worlds the biggest donāt iāve seen all season is playing defense, its a bad path to take sadly over the years it use to be praised as a good strategy but not it really seems that vex is pushing towards offensive only.
I apologize for my silence through this process, but this has now gone out of my hands and the best thing I can do is to remain quiet until told otherwise. I promise to clear everything up, but as of now, we havenāt even been told why our spot was revoked. Thanks for all of the support, Iāll check back in later.
Hmmā¦ Think you will need to understand more about vex in Singaporeā¦ our nationals is always early. But we do not stopped interacting with others or stopped having matches 
My teams are generally more well-versed in the rules or better informed about the evolvement of rules than many us-based teams
But my main concern is really like what @CleansweepmanJr says - I am not comfortable with the current defensive-play bashing that is happening for this season and how it has (maybe unconsciously) affected some refereesā calls.
Over at Asia pacific, we play it tough (within the rules of course). Eg NZ Nationalsā¦ those so called tough defensive plays are actually quite a standard fare for usā¦ even during scrimmages.
I donāt want to spend so much resources to fly over for worlds only to be dq-ed.
And hence the reason why I want to know what happened.
It depends on the way you interact with the goal.
As for the specific <SG6> violation, check my post above for the video and a description of it.
I have posted this Q&A for clarification:
Teams should probably avoid using a mobile goal intake to move opponent goals until a clarification is provided or the rule is updated.
@Cameron Schiller Wish you the best of luck man you deserve your spot.
I was literally in the conversation with 62 while they were determining the ruling. Cameron was very respectful to all the referees during the entire process, and I never observed any behavior that would warrant a disqualification under <G1>.
In the FL State Tournament an alliance was DQād in the second game of the QF for mogo hoarding. This changed the score from about (not exactly sure off the top of my head) 115-44 to 0-44. A third match was played and the DQād alliance lost, so they lost the QF.
Issue is that there is no rule against mogo hoarding, actually, there is a thread in the QA stating specifically that it is legal, only cone hoarding is illegal. Given this, the RECF rep was shown the official QA thread (before SF), that thread was then shown to the head ref that made the DQ call and the 115/44 match was re-played. The DQād alliance won, thus changing the QF outcome.
However, if the DQād alliance had not privately complained to someone who looked up the rules and brought it to RECF rep (or if that rep wasnāt there) the outcome would have been different. Yes, there still seems to be confusion about defense and legality .
There were a number of terrible calls made by the ref at the FL State Championship shifting the outcomes of many matches, and that was only one of them.
My teamās only loss in qualifying matches that day was because the opposing team descored our cones (yes, it was match affecting but the ref said nothing, and upon my explanation of what happened simply told me that his ruling was final). Also in that match the opposing alliance forgot to select their autonomous routine on their robot and when it didnāt run (they waited until the entire autonomous period was over and my side had won), they told the ref it was āthe fieldās faultā and he allowed the autonomous to be replayed. Needless to say, they then ended up winning that one (not because their auton mattered, as their bullet auton was slower than my auton so it didnāt affect me, but because my teammateās auton didnāt work properly this time around).
If we had rightfully won that game, we wouldāve been first seed and won the entire event. Because of that one bad call, we finished fourth seed and lost in the semi finals to the number one seed.
In addition, we only lost to the number one seed because of another bad ruling ā in the second match of the semifinal, one of the opposing teams rammed our robot into the fence, extended their mobile goal lift into the back of my robot, and drove backwards, causing my power expanded wire to be sliced. Not unplugged, but sliced. The ref said he couldnt be sure the power expander was actually off, and when I showed him that the light on it was off (proving it no longer had a battery connection) he just said that it wasnāt match affecting, even though we had been unable to move our lift or our mobile goal lift for the last 40 seconds of the match.
Yeah, there were a lot of terrible ref calls made in many state championships. My heart goes out to you guys at 62 and I hope things get resolved. Hopefully theyāll actually listen to you guys instead of the standard āmy ruling is finalā bs.
There is a lot that goes into the ref decisions in the heat of the match and immediately following. Iām not going to comment on this particular instance since I wasnāt there, but I do want to comment on what has helped my teams during these types of situations over the years.
- Be respectfulā¦NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS!
- Develop a positive reputation for your team and organization.
You will be amazed how far these two items will help your team when any questionable issue arises.
- Build strong relationships with event partners and their volunteers (not just the refs)
- KNOW THE RULES! Bring a printed game manual to every event. I know VRCHub has the rules, but many times a printed manual is easier than looking at a phone screen. [NOTE: If you are an event partner please have at least one printed game manual available for refs.] Make sure to include printouts of official Q&A items you think may be relevant.
- BE PROACTIVE! If you have any concerns talk to the head ref individually about it before the competition begins or bring it up in the drivers meeting. It is much easier to have this conversation before the issue arises. Items 1 & 2 go a long way to making this conversation easier.
- When the ref says the ruling is final see item 1. If appropriate follow up with the event partner or RECF rep.
Cameron - I appreciate your patience and hope it gets resolved soon.
I would add to print a copy of the Q&A Summary - we have multiple copies printed out for the referees and teams to consult. At events, I remind teams to reread the specific rule they believe has been misinterpreted before approaching the head referee. Also, only we strictly enforce that only student drive team members may approach the head referee.
As to how to approach a head referee, state your case once and take a step back physically for the referee and the other team to process your position. Body language goes a long way in these situations in avoiding escalating tempers. Once a decision has been reached, accept it and move on. Understand that will be one group that will not be pleased with the outcome.
does anyone else find it strange that the RECF typically seems slow to respond when their integrity is called into question? Wouldnāt it make sense to at least make a āweāre looking into itā kind of response early on if they donāt have enough information to make a full response?
Iām sure theyāre working towards a fair outcome, but the silence gives the feeling that theyāre either hiding something or ignoring the issue entirely. Whether or not they owe us an explanation isnāt relevant, it just seems that it would be in their best interest to respond quickly.
I was in the alliance against 62A. Therefore I should be decently biased against them. However, I do feel like their DQ was unwarranted, especially if itās a <G1> hammer. 62 conducted themselves in a very professional manner. Even when the refs discounted a few VEX Official Q&A post(idk why), the 62 team did not show annoyance or say anything to disrespect the refs.
As far as the 6007X ruling goes, my personal opinion is that they shouldnāt have been DQed. Yes, they modified their pneumatic reservoirs. Yes, they broke a safety rule. However, itās not like it gave them an unfair competitive advantage. To me, it looks like they drilled the hole out in order to make mounting cleaner.
If anything, give both teams their worlds spot back. I think they learned their lesson.
based on the pictures Aeden posted, I donāt think any sane ref would call it a safety violation unless thereās something in the rules Iām missing that explicitly says that pneumatics modifications are safety violations. I donāt see any way in which it made it unsafe (now if the hole had been drill into the part that actually holds the air then perhaps a case could be made). It is however a clear R15 violation and because of that I donāt think a DQ was uncalled for (though based on the limited information I have I think it was more than a bit harsh) but I also donāt think not giving a DQ also would have been fine, R21 leaves it to the discretion of the referee whether or not the violation was done intentionally to gain an advantage, and if they determine that it was, itās still up to their discretion whether or not they should DQ so in these types of situations it can go either way with complete adherence to the game manual.
The information is still very limited so Iām taking my own conclusions with a grain of salt until more information is available.
This was disscused a bit on discord, I realize now that itās not fair to say that it wouldnāt be a safety violation based on pictures that the refs would not have seen.
Even after seeing the cutaways Iām not sure that itās safe. Modifying pneumatics isnāt really something I would be comfortable with any HS team doing, one false move and there is are several kgs of projectiles in the middle of a competition. While it wouldnāt have given 6007 much of a competitive advantage, it was the teamās responsibility to know what they did was outside the rules and potentially unsafe to themselves and others.
While I wonāt pretend to know all the facts, the case of 62A seems very odd. The issue should be cut and dry, either they violated <SG6> (which only the opinion of the Head Ref matters here) or there is another reason. Either way the event organizers need to come clean with what happened, and justify why 62Aās qualification was revoked. Since even if you get a match DQ in semis an being a semifinalist qualifies, you still qualify, right?
I do agree that the āhigher-upsā (RECF and event head refs) should be very transparent about major rulings like this. It only causes more anguish and controversy when no one knows anything except the parties involved. I know that theyāre the most important, and nobody else really NEEDS to know anything, but itād be nice nonetheless.