Reffing Call on Defense

At my state competition this past week we were received a DQ in Quarterfinals when playing defense against another robot. I am not here to argue about the call, I am here to ask about ruling in these situations. This was the situation: There was an external stacker with a scissor lift putting a cube in the tallest tower. Us, being a logical team did not want them to put that green cube in that tower. We turned around and drove into there drive base (not that fast, it was a tap) then we drove back. The robot started tipping and fell over because it was at max height.

My question is, how can you defend that? Another situation happened where a tray bot was placing in a smaller tower, our trays collided and they tipped as we were driving away. If its not intentional, is this considered a design flaw or a warning (and eventually DQ if it happens too much)? Thanks!

Honestly - these interactions are considered whatever the head referee considers them. If head ref decides it is intentional or egregious, they can give a DQ.

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.
a. VEX Robotics Competition Tower Takeover is intended to be an offensive game. Teams that partake in solely defensive or destructive strategies will not have the protections implied by G12 (see G13). However, defensive play which does not involve destructive or illegal strategies is still within the spirit of this rule.
b. VEX Robotics Competition Tower Takeover is an interactive game. Some incidental tipping, Entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal gameplay without violation. It will be up to the Head Referee’s discretion whether the interaction was incidental or intentional.
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.
d. Game elements in possession of a Robot are an extension of that Robot. Therefore, Entanglement (e.g., grasping, hooking, attaching) with Cubes that are in the possession of an opposing Robot is a violation of this rule.

(bolded for emphasis)

ETA - just based on what you’ve written, it sounds reasonable for a head ref to decide that the first interaction was intentional (since hitting the base of a fully extended scissor lift seems like it has a high probability to cause it to tip). The ref would have made the determination based on the surrounding facts / circumstances as well.


I would side with the ref on this one. It was your intention to hit the other robot. If you do something intentional, you own the consequences of that act. You intentionally bumped a fully extended robot. It fell over. DQ