Rulings at Benton county fair

I mean, it is in the reveal video that way.



That I am not sure when objections came about.

Totally agree. For soccer referee certification courses, it is really amplified to not make up explanations, just state the infraction that in your opinion was infracted. Then move on. Like with soccer, the decision by the referee (in most cases) is final. Now I say in most cases, because there is the ability to replay matches under extremely limited situations in VRC. These are described in <G20> in particular rules issues:

B. Match Affecting game rule issues.
i. Head Referee disables a Robot for a misinterpretation of a rule violation.
ii. Head Referee starts the Driver Controlled Period of the Match without determining the outcome

of the Autonomous Period winner.
iii. The field is reset before a score is determined.
[edit - misread - i. the issue with matches was not disablement of robot due to misinterpretation of rules violations… so <G20> does not apply here. removed incorrect statement below.]

I just want to be clear that Early Season in North America, is not so Early season for other regions around the Globe who are in full swing of competition.

So here is the rub - it is not official until it is in the Game Manual or Q&A.

That said, I think we really need Referee Certification and Training a lot sooner, like a month after reveal. Certainly, having these resources available before Qualifying events is important for consistency in officiating at events.

Also, another point that was that the rationale about what was the legal way based on passed events should not happen. Each season is its own context. So what was legal interpretation in Turning Point may not be legal for Tipping Point.


I’ve been saying that someone needs to make a Q&A that is just a list of old Q&A’s about G or R rules and just ask if they still apply, would remove a lot of gray area (assuming that question would ever get answered, which seems less and less likely as the days go by)


Event is starting back up today, they’ve announced that they will begin properly applying <sg3>, but will be continuing to improperly score autonomous for the sake of consistency. Which, imo, is the best they can really do at this stage in the event. It would have been far better if they had restarted earlier yesterday when these problems were brought to light, but it’s too late to do that now, and changing how they score auton mid-competition would probably do more harm than good, even if the way they score it is wrong.


Interesting point at today’s event - VRC HUB game manual is not a copy of the official Game Manual - this is a HUGE problem as teams use it as a reference and not see official changes to game rules, such as <SG3>.



would probably do more harm than good to be honest. best to just keep it consistent


it would punish all the teams that unknowingly made auton routes that take advantage of the platform, which I blame not on the event but on the rules for being so unclear about what counts during auton. The large majority of teams do not read the forum or the q&a’s, and they’d have no idea that anything wouldn’t count for points in auton, because I would never expect someone to realize that just by themselves from only the manual.

I mean even if they had scored auton right from the start, it still would have punished a lot of teams that had no idea that the auton route they worked hours on wasn’t worth any points. Very unfortunate that the gdc didn’t clear that up before events started. I very much hope that this event will convince them to act.


For the record, they didn’t say this exactly. They said that they would continue applying SG3 as they have been (DQing teams and even whole alliances for non-DQable offenses) during the qualification rounds, and would change to the correct interpretation for the elimination rounds. I do not think this is fair, especially to the team that was DQed in the qualification rounds for the actions of their partner. The DQs easily could have been reversed without re-playing the matches.

EDIT: And to this point, in Q67 8481Z was DQed for bumping the platform while trying to retrieve a mobile goal that their opponents had hoarded in the corner.

Another big point made though, which lacsap mentioned, is that VRC Hub does not have the most updated version of the game manual. This explains a lot. It is also, frankly, completely ridiculous. VRC Hub is an Official App from VEX. It is the most convenient way to access the game manual at events and for it to have an outdated version of the game manual a week after a very important update is unacceptable.

@Dave_Flowerday Do you have an estimate for when the game manual in VRC hub will be updated?


I didn’t catch that it would only be for elimination rounds. Doesn’t make sense to me, if you’re going to change the way a rule is enforced during an event, best to do it as soon as possible. And I agree that DQ’s issued to teams for incidental contact should be reversed, I imagine it must be possible to do that in TM software.

1 Like

They acknowledge first competition of the season would raise a lot of Q&A.

During one match the referee declared this situation as not hoarding since the alliance was not touching the mobile goals they stashed in the corner:
32 seconds left in match:
17 seconds left in match:

I do not recall seeing requirement of contact of robot in definition of hoarding.


Agreed. There is some ambiguity in the rules, but I think a lot of the issues at this event are from the refs not being familiar enough with the rules. Ref training videos absolutely need to be released before worlds qualifying events take place.


hoarding seems incredibly difficult to call as a ref, because the goals often end up in corners. And if many robots try to grab those goals at once the hoarding definition can easily be met, even if the team in violation has no intent to hoard but is only trying to grab a goal.


Well watching red actively block access to three mobile goals with one or two of their bots there for last 30 seconds of match is not a stretch about “intent”. I think that referee should have alert possibility of hoarding around 30 seconds when both red were protecting side with three mobile goals. That is if referee thought it was hoarding. Apparently not, since it was explained by referee that the robots must be touching the mobile goals for it to be considered hoarding.

Now, I may be wrong, but I do not see where states contact mobile goals, but just place them in corner. <SG7> from game manual:

<SG7> Hoarding of Mobile Goals is limited. Robots may not Hoard more than one (1) Mobile Goal at once.

Minor violations of this rule that do not affect the Match will result in a warning. Match Affecting offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a Dis- qualification at the Head Referee’s discretion.

Note: Hoarding is not a time-based activity (i.e. a 5 second count, like Trapping). As soon as a Robot places multiple Mobile Goals in the corner of an Alliance Home Zone, they are at risk of causing a Hoarding violation.

In this specific match, Blue won, so not match affecting.

As the two red we responsible for goal motion into corner, they did have opportunity in last 30 seconds to move some away, provide access to other alliance to those goals.

Early season observations.


no I agree that your example was clearly hoarding, but I’m more referring to those corner field tussles that occur almost every match, where the alliance who’s side of the field the tussle is occurring does sometimes meet the definition of hoarding, when they’re just trying to grab a goal and opponent robots are as well.


What is great about this match, that is how it started, as a tussle between the alliance across four tiles for three mobile goals, it was just prior to 32 snapshot that red pushed blue out of the way and pushed goals into a one tile corner.

This is good learning for teams and officials.

To your point, referees are not going to have it easy. For example, objects that land under a platform preventing from it balancing. You will need to follow which robot caused the action. Match 54 this happened, and although I remembered which alliance caused mobile goal to go under, I could not recall which specific robot did it. <SG3> is going to be hard. Robots are responsible for their actions, and in rules like <SG3> “intent” is not associated with the rule. Depending on the referee you may have more leniency but as a competitor I would want to be careful about these rabbit holes.


Interesting thing happened in finals 1, the incorrect (but consistent) auton scoring actually affected the outcome of the match.


Red was given the auton bonus because the event counted those two neutral goals, but technically neutral goals can only be considered scored at the end of the match, not the end of auton. So if auton scoring had been done strictly to the manual, blue would have won the auton bonus because the robot in the top right corner put 3 rings into that alliance goal they have, which according to the manual, is the only way to score points for auton.

The final score for the match was 100 to 93, in favor of red. If auton was being scored correctly at this event, the final score would have been 80 to 113, in favor of blue.

Red went on to win finals 2 (whose results were not affected by incorrect autonomous scoring, auton would have still been a tie had it been scored according to the manual), and thus the whole tournament.

Had blue won finals 1, they would have had a chance to potentially beat red in finals 3, but we’ll never know who would have won that match because it never happened.

But it is entirely possible that the winners of finals would have been different had auton been scored correctly.

I’m not at all contesting the results of the tournament, all teams played well and none of them are at any fault for the unfortunate scoring that occurred. And I’m definetely not saying any teams “deserved” to win matches they didn’t, or that any teams didn’t deserve to win matches. And honestly, the event isn’t to blame either (when it comes to auton scoring that is, they did some other things wrong that are not ambiguous), because while there is a q&a confirming goals and robots on platforms are not worth anything for auton, there is absolutely nothing about neutral goals or rings on them. All anyone has to go off of is those 6 words in the manual, “at the end of a match”, and who can blame someone for not noticing them?

Additionally, if auton had been scored right at this event, people likely would have run different auton routes that don’t include the neutral goals or the platforms, and that would have changed the outcome of countless matches, not just finals 1.

So it would be inaccurate to say that had scoring been done properly, blue alliance would have won the tournament and red would have lost. It’s impossible to say that would have happened, because the entire tournament would have been very different.

The reason I’m pointing this one match out is to emphasize that because of the gdc’s inaction regarding these scoring clarifications, this tournament might have turned out very differently than it did today, and while that doesn’t matter for small, local tournaments, it’s kind of an issue when that happens at a signature event that qualifies teams for the world championship. Because the fuzzy auton scoring rules were left up to the events interpretation (which I can’t blame on them because of how fuzzy the rules really are), teams might not get to go to worlds that otherwise would have.

So basically what I’m trying to say is GDC, fix these rules. Before another event happens, and the same issues occur. And not just in the Q&A, because most people don’t actually look at the Q&A, and as we saw at this event, the Q&A about platforms scoring during auton had no affect. It needs to explicitly state in the manual what does, and what doesn’t count towards winning auton. If it doesn’t get addressed, more and more events will be run, all of them scoring auton in different and incorrect ways, and competitors and event staff alike will become increasingly confused and aggravated, with some teams spending days, potentially weeks creating complex auton routes that are great at some events, and worthless at others because there are no clear rules about what is or isn’t worth points.


Not an easy game to ref this year. In the second final, looked like Red nudged Blue into the platform with about 21 seconds left, which should have either been a DQ (based on the rules as applied during qualifiers) or an award of 30 points (the “elevated robot” based on the updated SG3 on 27-Jun-2021).


There are so many things to keep track of for the refs. They have to watch the time and platforms after the 30 sec mark, corners for hoarding, pinning and entanglement when fighting for goals. There also seems to be a lot of judgment calls, like the goal fight and hoarding. This might me the hardest year to ref there has ever been.


didn’t even notice that as it happened and I had a better view of the field than any of the refs. Difficult game to be sure between the hoarding and platform touching rules.


I mean, as you can see in the picture Xenon put above, they had 4 refs… They were all just on the exact same side of the field…

1 Like