I was wondering if this autonomous is legal?

Is this Autonomous legal? I was looking through the game manual and all it says is that put the cube in a “non-scored” position, but VEX does not define what that means.

Take a look at RSC-5 in the game manual. They are using the rules to their advantage.

Everything there is legal EXCEPT for the fact that in order to place their blue cube in a non-scored position (which was legal), they move the red cube, which is illegal.

I guess I should have watched the video…this strategy has been in discussion for months, both on this forum and in the World Coaches Association.

Any team planning to use this strategy needs to ensure the field is set up properly prior to their run, otherwise there might be that slight incidental move of a cube. It’s really a judgement call by the skills referee: clearly the team is not trying to blatantly violate the rules, and most referees will let it go. Had the red cube been 1/8" to the other side of the black line (well within field setup tolerance), the run would have been “clean.”

Yes, mostly legal

This is the key point, you can’t move multiple cubes, so I would not have counted it

Does that mean your allowed to touch 2 red cubes move both of them to the other side by hand, touch the other blue cubes with your robot and move it to the other side by hand and then just push them in? (assuming you didn’t touch the other cubes). Our state competition is coming up and I was wondering if the referees would allow this.

Hi, Welcome to the forums.

If you look at the manual, specifically RSC5, you’ll see that it says that the robot must be controlling a game object to reposition it. Whether or not touching equals control, I do not believe has been clarified in any official way, yet, despite it being asked quite a while ago.

I took it to be they roll-up to the cube with their claw/forklift/grabber and latch onto the claw. It looks like it’s partially off the floor on the near end when they grab it. That would be control to me. If they are just touching it, I would say they are not controlling it and would not allow it.

I’m sorry, I have to take back what I said earlier… the questions has been answered…

From the Q&A

David CRAIG (Event Partner)

1 month ago

I act as a referee in Scotland. My question is about RSC5. This question will become important if teams exploit strategic replacement of game objects.

A Team may handle their Robot as many times as desired during a Programming Skills Match.

b. Any Game Objects being controlled by the Robot while being handled must be removed from the Robot and gently placed in a non-Scored position by the Team.

Question: what is the definition of ‘being controlled’ and ‘while being handled’ in this context? If a game object is clasped and lifted off the floor, it is clearly ‘being controlled’, but what about:

*touching a game object, on the floor

*being entangled in a game object

*having a robot arm pushed through a cube, but without touching it

There is no explicit requirement for the robot to be at rest before being handled, so there is a need to define when all these apply. If the act of lifting the robot to reset it leaves the game object behind on the floor, was the robot controlling the game object while being handled? ; and, specifically, is the team allowed to stratgically replace the game object?

Answered by Game Design Committee

Question: what is the definition of ‘being controlled’ and ‘while being handled’ in this context?

We cannot provide a strict definition for “controlled” that would apply to all possible Robot interactions. That said, the following thought experiment can be used as a general guideline: if, upon lifting the Robot for a reset, the Game Object is left behind on the Floor, then it would not have qualified as “controlled”.


They have been clear and consistent in their messaging. I am not sure why the same question has to be asked 12 times on the Q&A

I wish they would allow some sort of crowdsourcing the answer that they can approve before publishing to expedite the answering process.

1 Like

I think they have been clear about how to interpret moving then cube. I agree the questions questioning the decision are unneeded. It’s not like a court where someone is trying to interpret what the author intended, the GDC has told us exactly what they intended.

That being said a couple follow up questions seemed immediately obvious to me that should have been anticipated and answered - like what does control mean and how does the moving of other objects get treated.

Agree. I have no objection on further clarifying questions. The ones that are off base are the ones continuing to argue or who think they have contradicted themselves because they don’t understand that G17 applies to all and RSC5 over rules it for Programming skills only.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.