RSC5 Vs G3 ruling

There has been a lot of discussion on the ruling of< RSC5>,
In my opinion ruling should have come into play , states: Use common sense. When reading and applying the various rules in this document, please remember that common sense always applies in the VEX IQ Challenge,

I really feel bad for the kids and teams that programmed 60+ points, without manuel cube movement. Imagine the hours upon hours of programming they must have spent.

Hi @Nickyg529,

Since you’ve seen the discussions, can you tell us why you started a brand new discussion instead of adding your comments to one of the existing ones?

To better highlight their point, of course. :wink:

FYI, the best way to get this feedback to the official channels is to send it to

I don’t feel bad for teams that didn’t carefully read the rules. It was a student that brought this to light in October. Perhaps the coaches should just let the kids read the rules and play the game.


This year’s game rules diminished the need and motivation to really program a robot this year. I really feel bad for the kids who were legitimately interested in growing their programming skill this year. They were effectively idled after writing a couple simple and short programs.

But we can only hope future games do a better job of accommodating beginner to advanced students without the crutch of allowing students to physically move a game object anywhere in the field.


All that wasted learning.

If only you had some kids that were legitimately interested in growing their programming skills

It’s a shame these kids can’t do anything outside of the challenge set up by VEX. If I had programmers that were sitting idle, I’d challenge them automate the robot in some way.

This is like having an alliance where one team can score all the points. Should you tell the other team to sit in the corner, or do you find some way they can help?


Seemed to have hit a nerve a bit, I’m sorry if I have. I understand that you’re very invested and effectively one of the chief apologist of this rule. Been there, I understand.

Let’s level set. There’s a substantial number of people very invested in what we are doing here that are disappointed. Careful in how aggressively you swat them down. Our insight matters too.

With us specifically, we are fully invested. We do STEM Labs with additional kits. We make sure to spend time teaching our students in any way we can. But VEX Competitions are one of the most effective ways to engage students. The students forget they are learning, it’s easier to get them to stretch their understanding and skills.

This rule simply presents an opportunity cost for the season. Let’s do better in the future, we’ve done it in the past.

You may have misunderstood my position. Let me explain.

By my count (totally unofficial):
There are about 12,000 VEX IQ teams that compete around the world.
Less than 10,000 (about 80%) have runs skills
Out of teams that run skills only about 1/3 run programming skills

So, for the 8,500 teams (~70%) around the world who DO NOT run programming skills, I think finding an easy way to earn some points in programming is a great thing.

I understand that there are some vocal coaches who don’t think this is good. I would bet that most coaches who believe this is bad, have teams with a total skills score of over 111 points, which puts them in the top 10% of all teams around the world.

Given a group of 10 teams, should we focus on the #1 team, who thinks the programming part of the challenge should be harder, or teams 4-10 who don’t try programming at all because it’s too hard?

This seems pretty obvious to me. Let’s give those bottom 7 teams a boost onto the programming ladder.

We may have a different opinion of what’s “better”


It’s all a matter of opinion. Yes I agree 100% to let the kids read all the rules and make their own interpretations of the rules My next question is how do you determine if it’s a kids interpretation or an adults interpretation?

There is still no mention of the G3 rule. If RSC5 was common sense why is there all this controversy?

What the difference? Shouldn’t it just matter if it’s correct? The kids figured this one out first because they read the rules with less of a preconceived notion. It’s the adults that can’t seem to handle the changes from year to year…

If common sense was enough we wouldn’t need a Q&A at all.


As a coach my team and I had a long talk about this when we learned that something like this was completely legal. We went over the ruling and some of the pros and cons of doing something like this. Ultimately they all decided that doing programming skills without the assist of the rule is the way they would like to do it.

Some of the reasoning was in terms of life skills that doing the programming the hard way would help them with their possible future careers in terms of other stuff instead of using a weird ruling. Plus they are getting ready for a possible VRC competition in their future. They know that it’s let it go once and let it run.

When I lived in New Zealand the people I worked with played “Aussie Rules Football”. I had them explain it and it was “Well not really any rules, here is how you score points”.

I agree with @hassenplug, I want to inspire those 8-10 teams that are hard pressed to program a microwave to make popcorn(*) and get them to program a robot.

The RSC5 “rule” has been beaten to death. For what it’s worth it is what it is. I’ve offered this in other threads where people are unhappy about the games, create your own and submit them to the GDC. Or in this case, go close all the loopholes in Squared Away and publish what will soon be a 200 page document.

( Footnote: the "program a microwave to make popcorn without using the popcorn button is my litmus test for being a mentor. If you can do that, know your right from your left and correctly button a shirt, I can teach you everything you need to know about building and programming an VIQ robot. It’s a low bar…)


Because G3 is a different topic

Ok, so now I’m really confused. RSC5 is about robot skills and what you can’t do.

G3 is about “use common sense”. My common sense says read and follow the rules. If they say you can’t do something then don’t do that thing.

People will jump up and down and go "well we can have sharks with lasers and that’s OK because the rules don’t say “NO Sharks With Lasers”. But poof there is rule S1, all about safety.

1 Like

@d_hums I’m curious what type of score your team is getting. I assume it’s hard to get beyond 20 points.

Couldnt of been said any better!!!


1 Like

I’m curious why you say 20 and not 40? If a team can reliably score on one low platform it feels like they should be able to score on the other fairly easily.

Officially our skills scores are pretty bad but in practice we’re getting around 60 - 70. We do the reset option but the thing I was talking about was the whole thing about moving the blue/red cubes into the perfect position to score easily.

Yes, if you use part of RSC5 and reset the robot, 40 is as easy as 20.

The whole rule seems to be there to help teams who are not awesome at programming, so they can grab their robot if it gets stuck. Again, lower the bar for programming.

Edit: I had to change this because my goals are different from others

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