I’m gonna ping @Ben_Mitchell (relevant RSM) about this, would like to see if he can provide his perspective on the situation.
Just seems like some teams need to learn how to properly brace and build their robots. You should always expect defense to be part of the game. Stuff breaks, motors stop working it is all part of doing vex. The best teams adapted and overcome; they do not go cry to the refs and ref that the robot is too aggressive.
just build good fr fr
What a lad. I am sorry for your experience and this should not happen again.
Who honestly builds a robot and doesnt expect strong defense to be played by atleast 1 other team you will be playing? Every season I have to “CharlieProof” my robot because I have friends on other teams that I KNOW will have good robots that are built to play the game and rough each other up. Its part of vex ever since vex gave us such torquey motors with V5.
As for the RECF inconsistency. We competed in a tournament this month in which the b03 for finals (worlds qualifying level event) was not played. The refs realized this was not a bo1 event after I had showed them where the RECF had decided this event would be a worlds qualifying event. The refs were ready to change the event to bo3 but at that moment the EP gave the team we had just lost to the Tournament Trophy. Not a huge deal for me but I would of loved more matches. After the event the EP told me that bo3 was not played because he had called an RECF rep that very morning that says it wasn’t a worlds qualifying event. Turns out it still was and the team got the invite for it to prove it. Didnt really affect me that greatly because i qualled from excellence but why does RECF not know if an event quals for their own world championship?
I really love the Idea and theory of a defensive Descorer bot, and have played against the aforementioned 9364B (and have the little wooden token to prove it.) We actually didn’t take much defense from them, but I loved that match and think that people lose a lot of the fun aspect of matches when defense is limited when it shouldn’t be, which seems to be the effect of the inconsistent rulings.
Hi Charlie here 
. I think that defense should be expected in any game and that your bots should be built to reflect it. For instance the use of chain should be avoided due to its relative ease of just breaking for no good reason.
In looking across the season that most teams firgured out there would be little in person play and they focused on building fast high scoring with a finesse defense. Your rock’em sock’em style of play does poorly at LRT events, and will not do well at worlds.
In looking at your scores across the 5 events you played in, they were all low scoring matches, but your alliance won because you had a high scoring partner.
So if it hadn’t been for some breaks in the outside world with masking, and strict protection protocols that EPs set up, I don’t think your season would have gone so well.
Don’t know if you have a Worlds LRT berth, it will be interesting how you do against some of the great recycling robots.
Good luck.
Edited to add: Did you have the same kind of issues with teams / EP / RECF at the other events you went to?
This is funny on a new level to me. Have u considered that the matches were all so low-scoring because YY is such a good defense bot?
low-scoring could mean two opposite things in swing games, which is why its not a good indicator for robot performance
I can undoubtedly say that me(2616J) and the second seed(2145Z) both believed 1727G to be the best robot at the competition, it was only the ruling by the RECF that deterred us from competing vigorously over who got to pick him. RECF loves to see cool and unique designs, and in a year where all of the robots are very very similar, 1721G makes something unique and gets punished for it. How bout dat?
Your rock’em sock’em style of play does poorly at LRT events, and will not do well at worlds.
Absolutely, 100% agree with this. I would be surprised if I was even able to win a match in LRT. We do not have a full field setup, and would not be able to compete in any virtual tournaments. Our robot was designed with these constraints in mind.
Did you have the same kind of issues with teams / EP / RECF at the other events you went to?
I did not have any issues at any of the other 3 events I went to with the same strategy. In fact, I believe you were the event partner for one of them (but please correct me if this is wrong).
but your alliance won because you had a high scoring partner.
I’m not sure why you choose to imply that I am not contributing to winning matches, but I believe that I was a significant part of why I won my matches. I was able to complete the homerow in multiple matches, and then counter the offensive prowess of strong scoring robots.
If teams figured there would be “little in person play”, and designed accordingly, isn’t it their fault for then going to these in person events if their design wasn’t able to be sustainable against actual in person events?
Total disconnect. No evidence that concerns by EP or RECF had anything to do about design, but perhaps something else that is not present in this discussion.
[edit - to be clear one should not expect event EP nor ReCF RSM to be responding to this discussion.]
Fully agree, adding onto this
Some relevant rules
G12
Don’t destroy other Robots. But, be prepared to encounter defense. Strategies aimed solely
at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or Entanglement of opposing Robots are not part of the ethos of the VEX Robotics Competition and are not allowed. 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 Disqualification from the entirety of the competition.
G12-C
A Team is responsible for the actions of its Robot at all times, including the Autonomous Period. This applies both to Teams that are driving recklessly or potentially causing damage, and to Teams that drive around with a small wheel base. A Team should design its Robot such that it is not easily tipped over or damaged by minor contact.
When I ref events, it’s always extremely difficult for me to penalize a team for chain breaking. My opinion is when a team uses chain, they are designing their robot in a way to be easily damaged by minor contact. Besides chain, a ziptie and omni roller were broken because of 1721G’s defense. It is arguable that the ziptie and omni roller was a repeated offense and therefore was intentional, or that 1721G was being egregious, but that is not how the head referee of this event ruled it, and I agree with this.
I would like to remind teams what robots went through during Turning Point with images.
121X after Night at the Museum
929U after a scrimmage hosted by 169 before Worlds
169A after a scrimmage hosted by 169 before Worlds
All of the damage in these images was caused because of defense, but not because there was intent to break opponents robots. Damage happens, that’s what we expect when defensive strategies are allowed. We’ve had more time to accommodate to V5, and we know what to expect from other robots.
I’m going to add something here, and Yuanyang can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m 99.9% sure that this robot was intended to be brought strictly to in-person competitions since it would be most effective in head-to-head matches with contact. Also, with LRT-centered a lot of aspects of proper VRC design can be ignored. You don’t need to account for certain aspects of structural integrity, and using your words, can focus on building a fast high scoring robot with finesse defense. The thing is though, if you register for and compete at an in-person competition, you should expect to be defended against, both by defensive and offensive robots alike (Per the 2nd sentence in rule G12). Also, the robots that “sacrificed structural integrity in the name of speed” which people are referring to weren’t built for LRT, they were just built in and competed in a region with little to no defensive play.
Just because teams had the option to play in remote tournaments this season doesn’t mean that aspects of certain rules like G12-C should be overlooked or left up to vague interpretation.
to be clear one should not expect event EP nor ReCF RSM to be responding to this discussion
Agreed. The main concern of this thread was the way the RECF handled decision making and rulings. Rule T2 of the game manual says
The Event Partner may not overrule the Head Referee’s
decision
From the way decisions were made it wasn’t clear if this was happening.
Worth noting - the EP at this event was the coach of one of the team’s whos’ robot was damaged. Not making accusations here, but it seems possible to me that there could be some conflict of interest there, especially with how involved he seemed to be in the decisions
From your description - EP, nor RECF representative, interfered with match decisions by the referees at specific matches, nor the head referee.
Your posts more have to do with communication to teams by EP and RECF representative on site about what is acceptable or not acceptable team behavior in matches. The inconsistencies of “rulings” was with respect to what was communicated to you directly.
Your main concern in this thread was with communications to your team and to other teams from EP and ReCF rep about your team’s robot and performance during matches during the event, and specifically to specific teams in the Pit area without representation of you, your team, nor your adult representative at the event (who chose to be outside of the venue due to covid and your mentor who did not travel to event due to same concerns) prior to alliance selection impacted other team choices in selecting your team as a partner.
These are upsetting views to be sure. My recommendation is you contact your RECF Regional Support Manager with your adult team representative for an honest communication about this event. It is the most appropriate way to advance forward.
My experience with RECF RSM in the past seven years, they are there to advance the mission of the RECF by supporting teams everywhere. Sometimes having that honest discussion post event is beneficial to all and many others in the community to move forward.
I know I get it wrong, but work hard to get it right in the future.
I thought it was made pretty clear that this was done during the event with the RSM that was present at the event and the contact was made by the team’s adult mentor Matthew Levis as stated in the OP