I wanted to get some guidance on a situation our team experienced during a VEX IQ Mix & Match autonomous (Skills) run in states.
At the start of the run, the field pins appeared to be noticeably misaligned ( Picture attached.) compared to the official VEX Robotics field reset diagrams (specifically the Mix & Match Skills Field Reset guide).
The team members requested the judge to adjust the pin to what they believed was the correct position.
However, the judge overseeing the field stated that the setup was already correct and instructed the team not to touch anything. The instruction was delivered quite firmly, which made the students uncomfortable. They ultimately proceeded with the run as-is . Fortunately, the program still worked. Thank God!!
As we all know, autonomous routines depend heavily on consistent field setup and coordinates/moves. While some tolerance can be handled in code, larger deviations can impact results significantly and sometime could ruin the whole run.
I’d really appreciate advice from the community on how teams should handle situations like this in a respectful and appropriate way:
If a team believes field elements are significantly out of position, what is the best course of action?
Should students pause and ask for a Head Referee, or step away and get their coach involved before starting the run?
Is there an accepted tolerance or margin for pin/beam placement in official matches?
How can teams advocate for a fair setup without creating conflict or putting pressure on volunteers/Judges?
We fully respect the role of judges and volunteers, and we want to make sure we guide our students to respond appropriately while also ensuring fair competition conditions.
If you think the field is messed up, the students need to tell the head referee before the match starts. According to the rules, the allowed tolerance for pins is plus or minus 0.5 inches. Students have to be the ones to handle it and should stay in the driver station to talk it out calmly. Coaches and other adults aren’t allowed to get involved in these conversations with the referee. It’s best to just ask for the head referee if the person at the field won’t help, since they have the final say on the rules.
In the past we’ve had kids note that field elements were built incorrectly (e.g., purple dispensers in Slapshot that had backwards ratchets), or were broken (Rapid Relay goals that were no longer fully seated in the field after intense play) or noted that one field was slanted when others weren’t, or that there were other field setup issues.
While I encourage students to advocate with some positions at the field (likely you meant referees, not judges), it might be that the referee doesn’t know the rules, or that one field is just different to the others. In this case, we’ve advised teams to not do the run and they’ve never been penalized by getting a run count as a zero- at worst they just have to go to the back of the line. Sometimes they loop back in line a couple times to get the right field for an auto.
Depending on the situation, they’ve also gone to the head referee (we often have more novice referees in skills) or the EP afterwards. Occasionally the students have been wrong, but more often than not, the adult volunteer running things got it wrong. We’ve never had a situation where the head ref/EP got the rules wrong, but we strongly advocate that students not feel railroaded especially at a skills field before they’ve started a run.
Rules clearly state 1/2" leeway for game element positioning. Kids can ask referees to adjust, but no guarantees if the ref feels the scoring elements meet spec.
This is a good opportunity for kids to interact with “authorities” and try and argue their case. One learning aspect for the kids is gaining confidence in questioning things during competitions. No guarantee they will end up satisfied with the interaction, but dealing with outcomes if these interactions, be they “good” or “bad” is an important life skill. Regardless, no coach or parent should ever be involved, of course.
Thanks Much. Yes, I meant referee/adult volunteer, who looked like a high school kid in this case. I agree that lot of referees/volunteers are not clear about the rules, and it is not expected to be perfect world. But the sad part is when referees/volunteers refuse to listen or take a moment to think before they push back the kids. Well, kids have to deal with it at the end of the day. I think it is best to loop back then and still have concerns, the kids to defer to the head ref. Thanks again for sharing your experience.
Thanks much for the clarification. I understand the 0.5-inch tolerance and agree that teams should design their code to handle reasonable variation.
However, in situations where an element appears to be significantly outside that tolerance—like in the example I shared—it would be helpful if referees were open to briefly reviewing the concern or consulting the Head Referee if there is any uncertainty. Even a quick verification can go a long way in ensuring consistency and fairness.
I also agree that it’s valuable for students to learn how to respectfully advocate for themselves. At the same time, competitions already come with a high level of pressure, especially in a short autonomous Skills run. When students feel that a clearly “legal” concern isn’t being acknowledged, it can be discouraging—particularly given the amount of time and effort they’ve invested throughout the season preparing for that moment.
I believe there’s a balance: encouraging students to speak up, while also ensuring that their concerns are heard and evaluated when they fall within the rules. If there is any doubt, taking a few seconds to confirm with the Head Referee seems like a reasonable approach that supports both fairness and a positive student experience. Just my opinion
I often serve as head referee and agree with all your points. At the events I have refereed for, there was always a discussion about how we as a group were going to handle various situations that invariably arise. The allowable tolerances and allowing kids to ask for scoring objects to be moved (to meet tolerances) was always something I stated was one of our goals - we did this for alliance matches as well. That being said, I did have two occasions where an elementary school team asked to me with me during breaks (usually lunch) because they felt the scoring object placement issue you brought up was an issue. So I will admit that even with pre-tournament discussion issues still apparently arose where teams were not satisfied. Part of this is the relatively complexity of this year’s game combined with small deviations during autonomous throwing off the whole routine. In those circumstances I listened and noted it must have felt frustrating if they felt the referees on skills weren’t listening to them. I would then reiterate with our skills folk that kids could ask for some objects to me moved, etc.
It sounds like the issues your kids brought up were not acknowledged at all, which I agree can be frustrating. In the future let them know they should be able to ask for the head referee, or feel free to approach the head referee during downtime to ask to be heard.
I can’t say I ever did more than acknowledge the kids’ frustration and disappointment, but was told by parents later the kids felt it was beneficial to be able to voice their concerns. And that really is what you and I are agreeing on here - creating a situation where the kids feel comfortable advocating for themselves. That’s a great life skill beyond any plastic robot building or block coding. Unfortunately, their mileage may vary depending on any particular competition they take part in. That too, unfortunately, is part of life. Learning that indeed, life is sometimes not fair. It doesn’t mean we should try and “teach them” that lesson through purposeful malfeasance on the refereeing side. But if there is a siver lining to a bad situation it’s that they do start to understand there are situations that truly are not fair. And they can start to develop mechanisms to handle those situations.
