Answered: Tubes scoring, on multiple goals, goal ownership

Due to some dependencies between these scenarios, it may be helpful to read the whole text to get my meaning, before answering any.

1. There is a slight difference in wording between A and B:
A: the definition of “scored” (which allows not being “upon a goalpost”),
B: the Scoring section “A tube that is scored upon a goalpost”
Can the section B “upon a goalpost” be disregarded, so that every tube that meets the longer full definition of “scored” counts for 2 points?

2. Each tube is either scored, or not scored, so it can’t be counted more than once for the 2 points, right?

3. Consider one tube scored on the wall goal, (as in picture in rules under definition “Scored”); Now consider a stack of **six **additional tubes adjacent to it on the floor, with the top of the stack touching the scored tube on the wall goal.
**Five **of the tubes on the stack are not touching the foam floor, but are in a touch-chain leading up to the scored wall goal tube, so these five count as ‘scored’, right?

4. In #3 (if right, else disregard), all the five scored tubes plus the wall goal tube contribute toward ownership of the goal, right?

5. Consider that the mobile goals may be moved to be adjacent to other goals. A stack of tubes on two adjacent goals may qualify as being scored on more than one goal. In the case where there is a mix of tube colors, how is goal ownership assigned?
Here is an example:
5A: A goal has scored on it two blue tubes, and one of them touches one of four red tubes scored on another goal. By the touch-rule, all 6 tubes count as scored by relationship to both goals.

Here are some potential rule interpretations I have brainstormed:
A: Each goal is considered in turn; all tubes that could possibly be assigned to that goal contribute to ownership of that goal.
In Example 5A: blue owns both goals. This is “winner takes all”.

B: Each tube is considered in turn, and assigned to contribute to the ownership of only one goal.
In Example 5A: goal ownership is split, blue owns a goal, red owns the other

C: other?

Thanks for consideration.

This answer has been updated in the following post to reflect the new manual edition from 11/17/2010. This answer only remains here as an archive. Please see the following post for the correct answer.

Yes, every tube which meets longer full definition of scored counts for two (2) points.

Yes, a tube can only be scored once for two (2) points. Despite that a tube may be considered scored on multiple goalposts in various bizarre scenarios, it will only be scored once. However, it will be counted towards ownership of all goalposts it is considered scored on.

Simple way of stating it: No tube is worth more than two points, but a tube can own multiple goals.

Yes, the five tubes which are not touching the floor but are part of the “touch-chain” which touches the tube scored on the wall goalpost count as being scored.

Yes, all these tubes count towards ownership of the wall goalpost.

Goalpost ownership is still assigned in the same way. Ownership is awarded to the alliance which has the most tubes scored on the goalpost. The count of tubes scored on the goalpost includes any tubes which may also be considered scored on other goalposts.

Correct, all six tubes would be considered scored on both goalposts. In this scenario, red would have a 4-2 advantage on both goalposts, hence red would own both goalposts. [FONT=Courier New]

[/FONT] Red would receive 2x5=10 points for ownership, plus 4x2=8 points for tubes scored, for a total of 18 points. Blue would receive 0x5=0 points for ownership, plus 2x2=4 points for tubes scored, for a total of 4 points.

This is correct.

The remaining questions are no longer relevant as the definition of scored has been updated to eliminate the chain scoring situations brought up in this post. We felt that these situations were counter-intuitive to spectators and if ever applied would take away from the game. We knew these situations would only account for less than 0.001% of the scoring scenario, but we still wanted to eliminate them. The new definition of scored from the VEX Game Manual.

The definition is no longer recursive, and as such there is no dependence on tubes touching other scored tubes.

Original definition (April, 2010):

Nov 17, 2010 Update:

**Q1: **Please clarify the definition of “encircles”.
A? The round post projection is completely covered by the ring inner diameter.
B? Any part of the round post projection is covered by the ring inner diameter.
C? The round post projection is completely covered by the ring outer diameter.
D? Any part of the round post projection is covered by the ring outer diameter.
E? something else?

Here is a Compare/contrast/Analysis of old vs new rules for when tubes count as scored.

• Tubes touching robots:
• OLD: not scored when touching same color robot.
• NEW: is scored when touching same color robot, usual limitations are gone.
• Analysis: Changes scoring of 1-10% of past games?
• Possible new strategy: hold large numbers(10?) of rings over one goal.
**Q2: **Is this an oversight? Usually game pieces touching robots of same color don’t count.
• OLD: a preload tube pierced by a wall goal (but not touching the field) is not scored until the robot stops touching it.
• NEW: Robot does not need to move for the preloaded tube to be scored.
Q2b: What rules prevents preloads from being in scored position at time0? Should pierced preloaded tubes be explicitly prohibited?
• Tubes touching tubes: “chain of touching” , “parent scored tube”,
“non-projection pierced tubes”
• OLD: All but bottom tube of a floor stack are scored if one of the stack is touching a normally scored tube. All of a leaning stack on a wall is scored.
• NEW: unpierced floor stack not scored, unpierced wall stack not scored
• Analysis: no use anymore to make unpierced stacks, affects 0.01% of future games, likely only at worlds where advanced strategy is developed, or at college games where high wall goal unscoring is more difficult.
• This is likely the intent of the update.
• Tipped over goals with a bunch of tubes on it, all tubes touching the floor.
• OLD: Top tube is likely only partially pierced, so top doesn’t count, others do.
• New: Tube touching floor doesn’t matter, Goal rim touching floor prevents projection of goal post. Depending on definition of “encircled” the top tube probably does count.
• Analysis: changes scoring of top tube on the 1% of games with a tipped goal.
Q3: How does the new definition of encircled affect the scoring of partially pierced top tube of a tipped goal?
• Tubes stacked above the goal post:
• OLD: all tubes are scored by touching rule.
• NEW: all tubes are scored by “encircled” infinite projection rule.
• Analysis: no change, only affects 1% of games with stack taller than post.
• Tubes “encircled” at a distance by projection of an angled mobile goal post:
• OLD: Tubes not in a touch chain are not scored.
• NEW: There are interesting (meaning painful to judge) strategies offered by the literal interpretation of this rule, if you can manipulate a mobile goal to point it where you want. Not likely the intent.
• Analysis: Literal interpretation likely affects some small fraction of future games, same as original loophole.
Q4: If one mobile goal with 2 blue rings is held above another goal with only one red ring, the blue rings count toward ownership of both goals, so blue owns both goals, right? If not, why not?

Q5: A mobile goal is carried (off the foam) and pointed like a laser pointer at some rings elsewhere (on the floor, on another robot, on a goal, on another field, held by fans in the stands). How can the judges determine “encircling” at such potentially “infinite” distances?

B

This is not an oversight, please see rule <SG3> quoted below.

Please see rule <SG3> quoted above. A tube is not scored if it is being touched by a robot of the same colour.

Yes, this was the intent of the update.

It depends how that top tube falls when a goal is tipped over. The answer to your first question clears this one up.

Correct.

Nope. Tubes can only be scored on one goal. This ruling is being set forth to eliminate the painful to judge scenarios you mention. We do not anticipate any team manipulating the goals in such a manner. If they do, it will be all for naught.

The referees will judge this very carefully. We do not expect this to ever happen.

J> Q1: Please clarify the definition of “encircles”.
K> B: Any part of the round post projection is covered by the ring inner diameter.

Thanks;

J> Oversight on Robot touching scoring tubes?
K> see <SG3> A tube is not considered scored if it is being touched by a robot on an alliance of the same color at the conclusion of either period.

If there is another rule update, please consider putting all the issues like SG3 that affect scoring in the “Scored” definition section, to aid others from repeating my mistake.

J> Should pierced preloaded tubes be explicitly prohibited?
K> (no comment)

Excellent. I look forward to seeing the first instance of this on youtube. I hope someone lets me know, and credits this thread when they try it.

K> Tubes can only be scored on one goal.

OK, thats in the Q&A now, even though not in the rules update.
Therefore, likely up to the judges/scorers decision about which goal a tube that qualifies as scored on more than one goal.
Analysis: There is no (scoring) purpose in holding one goal above another.

J> … mobile goal with 2 blue rings is held above another goal …
K> We do not anticipate any team manipulating the goals in such a manner.

New: … the projection of the top of the goalpost extended infinitely.
J> A mobile goal is carried (off the foam) and pointed like a laser pointer at some rings elsewhere…
K> The referees will judge this very carefully. We do not expect this to ever happen.

Analysis: Useless to point your carried mobile goal projection at another goal (since per Q&A above, Tubes can only be scored on one goal).
Still useful to point the projection at a collection of otherwise unscored tubes, such as those under the ladder, or those sequestered by another robot.
If any team does this, it would be good to document it, so you can put on your resume that you have “exceeded expectations”.

I think that concludes this thread then. Thanks.