Answered: Referee Disputes over Defensive Play

The_VEX_Raptors · January 2, 2013, 3:43pm

<G11> Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or Entanglement of Robots are not part of the ethos of the VEX Robotics Competition and are not allowed. However, VEX Sack Attack is an interactive game. Some incidental tipping, Entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal game play. If the tipping, Entanglement, or damage is ruled to be intentional or egregious, the offending team may be disqualified from that Match. Repeated offenses could result in a team being Disqualified from the remainder of the competition.
VEX Sack Attack is intended to be an offensive game. Teams that partake in solely defensive strategies will undergo extra scrutiny in regards to <G11>. In the case where referees are forced to make a judgment call on interaction between a defensive and offensive Robot, the referees will err on the side of the offensive Robot.
a. Robots which have expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field will undergo even more scrutiny under <G11>, and will not be protected under <G11>. e.g. If you choose to undertake this type of strategy, your robot should be built to withstand vigorous interaction. i. Furthermore, teams that undertake this type of obstructive strategy would not be
protected by <SG3>. e.g. There is no penalty for pinning a “wall-bot”
All teams are responsible for the actions of their Robots. This goes for teams who are driving recklessly and potentially causing damage, but also goes for teams who drive around with a small wheel base and arm extended. Teams should design their Robots such that they are not tipped over or damaged by minor contact.

Referees in my region have also had misconceptions about defense. Several teams in my region have been using defensive strategies (blocking, occasional pushing, nothing too serious), and referees have threatened to disqualify teams for these actions, which are clearly legal under the rules. When questioned about this, the referees answered that “defensive strategies are against the ethos of the competition.” I believe referees in our region have gotten the second part of <G11> confused with the rule’s opening statement.

It seems as though the refs took the bolded section in the second quote and linked it to the bolded section in the first quote, and because of this they believe that defense is against the rules and should not be allowed. I have two questions about this:

Am I incorrect in assuming that defensive play is legal in the VRC, and in reality, teams can be disqualified for playing defense, even when the opposing robot has not been damaged or tipped over?
If the answer to the first question is “no,” and defensive play is indeed legal, then what can be done to more accurately explain this rule to referees, so that errors in their interpretation of the rules do not effect the outcome of a tournament?

Karthik · January 3, 2013, 12:57pm

Defensive play is legal, provided that no rules are violated in the process. Blocking, pushing, etc. are expected parts of game play.

If you feel a referee is incorrectly applying the rules, you can do the following.

Let the Head Referee know your concern
Show the Head Referee the specific rule and/or Q&A entry in question

If you and the referee do not agree, you can escalate your concern to the Event Partner or the RECF representative at the event.

The_VEX_Raptors · January 3, 2013, 7:21pm

Alright, thanks Karthik!

Karthik · January 4, 2013, 8:28am

You’re welcome!