Is intentionally DQing in qual matches a thing?

We have seen this strategy a lot with 3 team alliances, where a pre-determined agreement was made for alliance selection, and the favored partner deliberately tanked in order to look less good, and less likely to be picked by an unfavored higher ranked team. So yes, I understand, and direct/indirect is still sabotaging other teams out there by such a situation.

I would encourage teams just to play their very best every match. Intentionally throwing a match is not the intent of the game.

Have fun!


@Gear_Geeks Maybe you haven’t read the new rules properly:
When this team intentionally brings upon a DQ on themselves, their partner and their opponents (all 3 teams) get 2 WP. So technically this hasn’t


Yes, I understand that rule. But there are two aspects. One is the win points - and yes, the other team gets win points. However, they don’t get the WIN. Their record would show a loss for that match and they would be ranked accordingly.

Specifically, if you look at a tournament ranking, there are two columns:

In the scenario described, the WP would be credited in WP/AP/SP but in the W/L/T column it would count as a loss.

Please correct me if I have that wrong.

1 Like

I rechecked the rules and nowhere is the W-L-T actually used for the ranking process (as far as I’m aware). WP are “the first basis of ranking teams” followed by AP and SP. I do not believe rankings add up the W/L/T instead only looking at the WP AP and SP so this shouldn’t affect their rank in any way.

I checked how it would be listed as from a match where we had a DQ. The DQd opponent had a higher score but the match was written as a Loss in their WLT whereas we were given a Win for it in our WLT.


You’re absolutely right. I think this is going to be a big flaw next season because - normally, you see teams ranked by W/L/T then it falls out from there based on APs and SPs. However, this season, you could see a team with a lower record up there with teams with higher records. So a 6-0-0 team with 12/20/50 could be outranked by a team with a 5-1-0 record with 12/22/55. That just doesn’t seem right. Hmmmm. I wonder is that was the intent or an unintended consequence… @Mike_Soukup @Dave_Flowerday

1 Like

Oh, I think I wasn’t too clear, when the opponent was DQd the system automatically gave the other 3 teams Wins on their W-L-T. So I don’t believe this outcome is in fact possible with the current system.
So whilst they may have only scored more than their opponent in 5 matches they would have a 6-0-0 record.


Now I’m confused - but I think they get win points. They don’t get credited for a win. They lost the match - so it is a loss, but they get win points.

1 Like

To be honest, so am I. According to the rules they’ve lost the match but received 2 WP because one of the opponent’s was DQd. However, the system still awards this as a win. Maybe this was to prevent the scenario that you mentioned before?


This just kind of makes my head explode.


W/L/T has never been a factor in anything. Only WP. Since they are a direct correlation almost always, this isn’t a problem. If what you’re saying about the W/L/T and WP not matching, then that’s odd, but ultimately WP is what matters.


I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that someone engaging in this hypothetical behavior are sabotaging everyone else. In my mind they are definitely sabotaging everyone else. Your original scenario specifically calls out it would be done to affect seeding order. Seeding order, picking, which teams are available to be picked, the impact of declining an offer are all strategic parts of the game. Manipulating the seeding order IS hurting everyone.


Definitely a <G1> violation for both you and the partner you’re conspiring with. Coming up with a plan to break the rules to benefit one or both of the conspirators is 100% a <G1> violation. Breaking any rule on purpose knowing that it’s against the rules is a <G1> violation anyway: “Act with integrity,… Follow all rules as listed in the current game manual(s)”.


Wins are indistinguishable from WPs. Wins, losses, and ties are not referenced in the rules when discussing rankings. Rankings use WPs, APs, and SPs. We actually had a good discussion with VEX/REC about what to display for this scenario. The team obviously gets the WPs, since that’s in the rules, but what do we show for their record? It was decided that it was less confusing for the W-L-T to match the WPs than it was for the W-L-T to be correct were it not for the opponent DQ.


Then it could lead to another way to abuse the rules.

What if you had a side-deal with one of the opposing teams and your qualification partner is the top team that is likely to beat them anyways?

Then you could intentionally tip the stack of your opponent (future elimination partner) and give them extra two WPs to boost their ranking.

It would be a tough call for the refs to determine the true intentions of the team.


Ah. Thanks for the response. I see that this isn’t an accident - but a deliberate decision. Now I need to unexplode my head.

1 Like

That’s still covered by the same rules as the OP.

Yes, now that we are digging deeper on various scenarios on this thread - I’m not sure that this change will end up being a good thing. There are lots of unintended consequences and ways it can be exploited.


Alright, here’s my two cents with the given knowledge of the game manual and code of conduct.

Although the rules states that intentionally DQ’ing is illegal, it was made before the update where everyone benefits when a team gets DQ’ed from a match.

There is a difference between sandbagging and disqualifying yourself. What @Kent_929S is saying is that if you disqualify yourself, everyone else but you benefit from the match, primarily because of the new disqualification structure made by the RECF/GDC.

The difference here is that the impact to anyone in the matches is so small it’s really not going to do much to the competition. Also, if you disqualify yourself giving everyone else a win it will be very hard to actually prove that their intent was detrimental to any team because the dq’ed team is the only one with punishment from the match, and I doubt the referees would look further into it because there’s so much to do with so little time and at that point they might as well be lawyering with suspicions and not visual evidence.

I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with having the strategy be a legal strategy as it provides a bit more flavor to the mix without damaging a specific team. I absolutely hate the fact that VEX tries so hard to create rules that are boxed in a cage. Imagine how cool and fun it would be if VEX intentionally created loopholes in their competitions where teams must try to figure it out, in which it would fuel more people to read the rules and try to solve the “puzzle” VEX would lay out in addition to the competition :wink: .

I don’t really like High School competitions because they are always lawyered and strict. They will also create rules as they go to patch up loopholes instead of expressing the loopholes and creating a unique playing-style that hasn’t been used before.

This is correct

I do not believe the impact is as bad as you believe. Let’s say you do have a perfect score. If you lose one match the most that will happen is you will not even leave the ablility to pick. You just move down and others go above you, but the group stays the same in that local area of competitive. The difference here is that one team has a better ability to pick another, nothing really other than that.

100%? What exactly defines percentage of breaking a rule? Is this technical terms we are talking about? In another discussion a team discussed about replacing motor threads to non-VEX threads is illegal but it’s okay to do because nobody can notice. Can’t breaking a rule be ethical?

That’s a good point now that I think about it, but to be frank if two teams are already deciding to pick each other or are very good friends and want to help them succeed, wouldn’t you say that they are expressing teamwork and collaboration which is exactly what VEX would like from teams?

To summarize my big jumble:
What’s wrong with allowing this? The only benefit is that one team gets to pick another team. This rule exhibits teamwork between two teams and can likely strengthen bonds too, and, as what VEX said, it’s not about winning.

Also, if y’all haven’t noticed I am a man who likes Devil’s advocate :wink:

The problem with allowing shadowy maneuvers like this is that vex becomes politics, with intense debates and technical definitions. Not to sound rude, but if you like this kind of competition style, I would highly recommend you do debate. Debate is all about finding loopholes and tricking your opponent.
But if this was allowed in vex, then teams would take less time learning the STEM skills to build their robot, and would create loophole exploits to win. We may see build quality decrease, since a team with a poor robot can get success just by exploiting loopholes.
All in all, I think this style would detract from the goals of VEX, and would overall hurt the tournament more.
Then again, you should try debate.


You certainly are. I’ll provide my two cents on this as well.

Picture your team on the alliance that didn’t get the DQ during qualifications. I know that, technically speaking, they win in this scenario. They get the WP, they get the win, they get boosted in the rankings just the same.

But that still doesn’t shake the fact that a lot of teams will find it disheartening to see the opposing alliance blatantly violating the rules. It doesn’t matter if I’m going to win anyway because of the DQ, if the opposing alliance goes and knocks over all my stacks I’m not going to be too happy about it. Vex already uses SP points to prevent “blowouts” because they care about how the losing team would feel in that situation. (The effectiveness of that is debatable, but that’s neither here nor there.) Similarly, it’s not very kind to the other team to blatantly break the rules and knock over all the hard work they’ve done. (It’s not too fun for spectators to watch either.)

1 Like