Official VRC Sack Attack Q&A - Open site which contains PDF - VEX ...

Official VRC Sack Attack Q&A 


Q&A Usage Guidelines 

Q&amp;A Usage Guidelines 

Posted by Karthik at 05/14/2012 07:23:58 pm 

Greetings VRC Participants, 

2013 Q&A Forum Export 

generated: 03/23/2013 08:23:34 am UTC 

As we prepare for the opening of the VEX Sack Attack Q&A to open, here are some posting 

tips that will the Q&A a more useful tool for everyone. 

1. Read and search the manual before posting any questions 

This one may seem self-explanatory, but I figured I'd state it anyways. After reviewing last 

season's Q&A in detail, it was seen that the majority of questions asked could be answered by 

simply searching the manual for the applicable rule. The "find" option is a great tool, use it to 

search the key terms in your question. The VEX Sack Attack Game Manual is a short 

document and a valuable tool, use it! 

2. Read and search the Q&A forum before posting any questions 

This is a corollary to the first item. As the season goes on, we tend to see a great deal of 

repetition in the Q&A forum. This repetition clutters the forum and makes it harder to find the 

real gems in here. So, we ask that you search through the Q&A to make sure your question 

hasn't already been asked and answered. 

If everyone does items 1 & 2, we could probably see an 80% reduction in the amount of Q&A 

posts. If that happens, it will become that much easier for everyone to do item number 2. (A 

tad circular, I realize.) 

3. Quote the applicable rule from the latest version of the manual in your question 

If you have a question about a specific rule, make sure you quote it from the manual. The 

latest version of the manual will always be located here: 

http://www.vexforum.com/wiki/index.php/Sack_Attack 

Often you'll find that by quoting the rule, you'll answer your own question. 

4. Make a separate post for each question you have 

If you three questions on three separate topics, please, make three separate posts. This 

makes it easier for people to search for specific topics. Of course if you have multiple 

questions that are all highly related, then feel free to ask them all as part of one post. 

5. Use specific and appropriate thread titles 

Page 1 of 238



The more specific your thread title, the easier it is for people searching the forum to find 

relevant posts. 

Examples of poor thread titles: 

- Self-tipping 

- Descoring question 

- Wall? 

- Sack Attack 

- What is this? 

Examples of good thread titles: 

- Clarification on SG5 

- Decorative side panels 

- Limits on interaction with the gate 

--- 

If everyone follows these tips. I'm sure we'll have a much more usable and functional Q&A! 

Happy rules analyzing, 

- Karthik 


Answered: field of vision??? 

Answered: field of vision??? 

Posted by matt at 05/14/2012 07:46:27 pm 

Hello, 

Is it legal to make a solid wall in front of your opponents so that they cant see their robots... 

this would be really funny!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D 

thanks!!! 

We love you Karthik!!!! 

Re: field of vision??? 


Also... 

would it be legal for the other team to walk around the wall!!!! 



Hello, 

Is it legal to make a solid wall in front of your opponents so that they cant see their robots... 

this would be really funny!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D 

thanks!!! 

We love you Karthik 

Page 2 of 238



There are no specific rules preventing this type of strategy our design. However you should be 

aware of the possibility of violating the following rules: 

Robots which have expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field will 

undergo even more scrutiny under , and will not be protected under . e.g. If you 

choose to undertake this type of strategy, your robot should be built to withstand vigorous 

interaction. 

i. Furthermore, teams that undertake this type of obstructive strategy would not be protected 

by . e.g. There is no penalty for pinning a “wall-bot” 

The type of robot/strategy you have described would definitely fall under the jurisdiction of 

. 

The following types of mechanisms and components are NOT allowed: 

c. Those that pose an unnecessary risk of entanglement. 

If constructing a "solid wall", you should be careful to avoid becoming an inherent risk of 

entanglement. This type of design would be highly scrutinized by inspectors. 



Also... 

would it be legal for the other team to walk around the wall 

No, this would be illegal, as stated in the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual 

During a Match, the Drivers and Coach must remain in their Alliance Station. 

Please be sure to search the manual carefully before posting questions in this forum. This 

thread has some helpful tips on how to use this forum. 



sorry about that... i missed that page..... sorry.... 



if we rested our wall on the wall of the field... is that legal...... 

thanks for the response 

Provided that you do not violate the following rule, this would be legal. 

Robots may not intentionally grasp, grapple or attach to any Field Elements. Violations 

of this rule will result in a Disqualification. 


Answered: Clarification on 

Page 3 of 238

Answered: Clarification on <G11> 

Posted by The VEX Raptors at 05/14/2012 08:42:25 pm 



a. Robots which have expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field will undergo even 

more scrutiny under , and will not be protected under . e.g. If you choose to 

undertake this type of strategy, your robot should be built to withstand vigorous interaction. 



If wall-bots will not be at all protected under , then does this mean that an offensive 

robot can intentionally tip or damage a wallbot? Also, would it be legal for an offensive robot to 

use its intake to tear a wallbot's wires out of its cortex? This seems quite radical... 

Re: Clarification on <G11> 


First off, thank you for quoting the specific rule and naming your thread appropriately. This is a 

nice example of how to pose a question in the Q&A forum, as outlined in our Q&A Usage 

Guidelines. 

If wall-bots will not be at all protected under , then does this mean that an offensive 

robot can intentionally tip or damage a wallbot? Also, would it be legal for an offensive robot to 

use its intake to tear a wallbot's wires out of its cortex? This seems quite radical... 

is intended to make it clear, that wall-bots are responsible for any interaction that 

comes as a result of an opposing robot trying to get past the wall-bot. If an opposing robot tips 

a wall-bot while trying to pass by them, this would not be considered a violation of . 

However, tearing wires out of a Cortex is not an effort to get past a wall-bot, it is 

unsportsmanlike, willful destruction, which will never be tolerated in the VEX Robotics 

Competition. 



First off, thank you for quoting the specific rule and naming your thread appropriately. This is a 

nice example of how to pose a question in the Q&A forum, as outlined in our Q&A Usage 

Guidelines. 






Competition. 

Alright, thanks for clearing that up! I'm glad that unsportsmanlike destruction will still not be 

allowed. 

Page 4 of 238





Alright, thanks for clearing that up! I'm glad that unsportsmanlike destruction will still not be 

allowed. 

You're welcome! 

Re: Answered: Clarification on <G11> 


I have another question regarding (quoted in O.P.). What is defined as "expanding 

horizontally to obstruct the field?" Would having wings on the sides of my intake to cover a 

trough be considered obstructing the field? 



I have another question regarding (quoted in O.P.). What is defined as "expanding 

horizontally to obstruct the field?" Would having wings on the sides of my intake to cover a 

trough be considered obstructing the field? 

Hypothetical situations dealing with specific designs are difficult to address with any sort of 

blanket ruling. That being said, what you've described does sound like obstructing the field. 



Hypothetical situations dealing with specific designs are difficult to address with any sort of 

blanket ruling. That being said, what you've described does sound like obstructing the field. 

There is no universal definition for obstructing the field. However, a general rule of thumb is 

that if you're expanding outwards horizontally, and you are covering an area longer than one 

trough, you're probably obstructing the field. Devices of this type that are use to cut off access 

to part of the field, or cover goals, will not receive the general protections set forth in . 

Sorry to play the what-if game, but if I may just ask one more... Referring to the bolded text 

from your post quoted above, if my hypothetical "wings" did not span an area longer than one 

trough, would they still be obstructing the field? 

One more question (and then I'll leave you alone, I promise!): If a robot expands horizontally 

for purposes other than to obstruct the field (e.i. to touch its starting tile from far away), would it 

still be protected by ? 



Sorry to play the what-if game, but if I may just ask one more... Referring to the bolded text 

from your post quoted above, if my hypothetical "wings" did not span an area longer than one 

trough, would they still be obstructing the field? 

Please read the post you quoted very carefully. It says that generally, if you have expanded to 

cover the length of a trough or more, you're probably obstructing the field. This does not imply 

that expanding to a lesser distance means you are not obstructing the field. Teams who design 

Page 5 of 238



any sort of "wing" devices should be prepared for them to fall under 

One more question (and then I'll leave you alone, I promise!): If a robot expands horizontally 

for purposes other than to obstruct the field (e.i. to touch its starting tile from far away), would it 

still be protected by ? 

Yes, as clearly stated in , the expansion must be involved in an effort to obstruct the 

field to qualify under this rule. However, just because a device has an alternate purpose, 

doesn't mean it still can't be used to obstruct the field. In the case you've described, if you've 

expanded a telescoping device to get your robot Parked at the end of the match, but it also 

simultaneously blocks a team from traversing the field, they can now push through it and not 

worry about being penalized under . 



Please read the post you quoted very carefully. It says that generally, if you have expanded to 

cover the length of a trough or more, you're probably obstructing the field. This does not imply 

that expanding to a lesser distance means you are not obstructing the field. Teams who design 

any sort of "wing" devices should be prepared for them to fall under 

Yes, as clearly stated in , the expansion must be involved in an effort to obstruct the 

field to qualify under this rule. However, just because a device has an alternate purpose, 

doesn't mean it still can't be used to obstruct the field. In the case you've described, if you've 

expanded a telescoping device to get your robot Parked at the end of the match, but it also 

simultaneously blocks a team from traversing the field, they can now push through it and not 

worry about being penalized under . 

Alright. Thanks for the answers! 



Alright. Thanks for the answers 



Answered: Damage of Field? 

Answered: Damage of Field? 

Posted by banditofernando at 05/14/2012 09:47:19 pm 

Hi Karthik, 

If a robot goes under the trough, but then the other alliances robot pushes that robot into the 

trough support, is it strong enough to take that force??? If it did damage the field, which team 

would be responsible for it?? 

Page 6 of 238

Thanks! 

Robert 

Re: Damage of Field? 




If a robot goes under the trough, but then the other alliances robot pushes that robot into the 

trough support, is it strong enough to take that force??? 

Yes, the Troughs are designed to withstand the force of robots being pushed against them. 

If it did damage the field, which team would be responsible for it?? 

As recommended in our Q&A Usage Guidelines, we ask that you please quote the specific rule 

your question is addressing. I've quoted the rule below for your convenience. 

If at any time the Robot operation or team actions are deemed unsafe or have damaged 

the Field Elements or Scoring Objects, by the determination of the referees, the offending 

team may be Disqualified. The Robot will require re-inspection before it may again take the 

field. 

In the case of any sort of field damage, the referees will make an assessment of who the 

offending team actually was. Since this is very context dependent, we cannot offer a blanket 

ruling on this question. 



Yes, the Troughs are designed to withstand the force of robots being pushed against them. 

As recommended in our Q&A Usage Guidelines, we ask that you please quote the specific rule 

your question is addressing. I've quoted the rule below for your convenience. 

In the case of any sort of field damage, the referees will make an assessment of who the 

offending team actually was. Since this is very context 

dependent, we cannot offer a blanket ruling on this question. 

Thanks Karthik! This was the one thing we've been worrying about this the game has been 

released. 

Robert 



Page 7 of 238



Thanks Karthik! This was the one thing we've been worrying about this the game has been 

released. 



Answered: Scoring in the floor goals 

Answered: Scoring in the floor goals 

Posted by TrippyCookie at 05/15/2012 02:16:57 am 

If a robot where to push a big stack of sacks onto a floor goal with maybe one or two on top of 

another sack and not touching the floor goal would they be counted as scorred or is the rule 

the same as in gateway. I read in the manual it has to be touching a tile but it states right after 

it cant be touching surrounding tile so i wasn't sure if the touching the tile only applied to the 

situation of it touching multiple tiles. 

Scored – A Scoring Object is Scored in a Goal if it meets one of the following criteria. 

1. A Scoring Object is partially within the three-dimensional space defined by the outer edges 

of a 

Trough or High Goal, projected upwards and infinitely perpendicular to the playing field. 

a. For a Scoring Object to count under this clause, it must not be touching a Robot of the same 

color as the Goal 

b. If a Scoring Object meets the criteria of being in both a High Goal and a Trough, it will be 

Scored only in the High Goal 

c. If a Scoring Object meets the criteria of being in both a red and blue High Goal OR both a 

red and blue Trough, it will be Scored in both. 

2. A Scoring Object is touching a Floor Goal, and not touching any other foam tiles. 

I think i know the answer but i wanted to make sure as one of my designs depends on the 

answer. 

Re: Scoring in the floor goals 


If a robot where to push a big stack of sacks onto a floor goal with maybe one or two on top of 

another sack and not touching the floor goal would they be counted as scorred or is the rule 

the same as in gateway. I read in the manual it has to be touching a tile but it states right after 

it cant be touching surrounding tile so i wasn't sure if the touching the tile only applied to the 

situation of it touching multiple tiles. 

I think i know the answer but i wanted to make sure as one of my designs depends on the 

answer. 

As per the definition which you so kindly quoted above, for any Scoring Object to be Scored in 

a Floor Goal, the Scoring Object MUST be touching the Floor Goal. This applies in all cases. 


Answered: Clevis Modification 

Answered: Clevis Modification 

Page 8 of 238

Posted by AndrewRemmers1902 at 05/15/2012 03:08:51 am 

Hello, 



I was wondering if modifying of specifically the rear clevis on the piston is prohibited at all? I 

simply want to make the hole larger for mounting. 

Would this be illegal? 

- Andrew 

Re: Clevis Modification 


I was wondering if modifying of specifically the rear clevis on the piston is prohibited at all? I 

simply want to make the hole larger for mounting. 

Would this be illegal? 

There are no rules prohibiting this type of action. 


Answered: Legal "Plastic" - f. Clarification 

Answered: Legal "Plastic" - <R7>f. Clarification 

Posted by dontworryaboutit at 05/15/2012 04:02:54 am 

Robots are allowed the following additional “non-VEX” components: 

f. Non shattering plastic (e.g. Polycarbonate, Garolite) as cut from a single 12" x 24" sheet up 

to 0.063" thick. 

Garolite (if I did my research well) is basically fiberglass: a composite of epoxy and glass 

fibers. If this is classified as a "plastic" as far as the manual is concerned, how exactly does 

the manual define "plastic"? 

Would polyurethane be fine to use on Sack Attack robots? 

What about rubber? 

Thanks in advance! 

Re: Legal "Plastic" - <R7>f. Clarification 

Posted by dontworryaboutit at 05/22/2012 05:01:16 pm 

Thanks for the answer, Karthik! 

Re: Legal "Plastic" - <R7>f. Clarification 


Thanks for the answer, Karthik 

Page 9 of 238




Just to make it abundantly clear for everyone reading this thread, was updated on 05/22 

to say the following. 


f. Non shattering plastic from the following list; polycarbonate, acetel monopolymer (Delrin), 

acetal copolymer (Acetron GP), POM (acetal), ABS, PEEK, PET, HDPE, LDPE, Nylon (all 

grades), Polypropylene, FEP; as cut from a single 12" x 24" sheet up to 0.063" thick. 

As such, Garolite, Polyurethane and rubber would not be legal. 


Answered: Renamed -- G11a clarification 

Answered: Renamed -- G11a clarification 

Posted by jacko at 05/15/2012 09:11:53 am 

Hi Karthik, firstly thankyou for coming and watching our elimination games with 44 to make 

sure we werent DQd! We appreciate it :) 

1) Wallbots... 

"a. Robots which have expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field will undergo even 




by . e.g. There is no penalty for pinning a “wall-bot” " 

To what extent does this ruling apply? As in, are wallbots protected from any damage at all? 

Or can ANYTHING be done to them, assuming no other rules are broken? Can sacks be 

placed on wallbots? 

Secondly, stupid ideas to do with wallbot counterattacks - is included for this? (I always 

get told G1 when i tell people my ideas -.- :p) 

And now... i cant remember the other questions and clarifications i had... il be back later with 

more when i remember! 

Re: Various Sack Attack Question 


Before you post questions in this forum, please make sure you have carefully read and 

followed all the instructions in the Q&A Guidelines. Specifically in this case, item #5, which 

asks for the use of appropriate and specific thread titles. I will be renaming this thread for the 

ease of searching of all other users. 

Page 10 of 238

1) Wallbots... 



"a. Robots which have expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field will undergo 

even more scrutiny under , and will not be protected under . e.g. If you choose 

to undertake this type of strategy, your robot should be built to withstand vigorous interaction. 


by . e.g. There is no penalty for pinning a “wall-bot” " 

To what extent does this ruling apply? As in, are wallbots protected from any damage at all? 

Or can ANYTHING be done to them, assuming no other rules are broken? 

The following Q&A entry answers your question: 

http://www.vexforum.com/showthread.php?t=71185 

To summarize, wall-bots are not protected from damage that is incurred by a robot trying to get 

past the wall-bot. 

Can sacks be placed on wallbots? 

Please make sure to search the manual thoroughly before posting questions. There is a 

specifc rule that deals with this situation: 

Robots are not permitted to intentionally place Sacks on an opposing robot. Violations 


There are no exceptions to this rule for any type of robot. 

Secondly, stupid ideas to do with wallbot counterattacks - is included for this? (I always 

get told G1 when i tell people my ideas -.- :p) 

When asking a question dealing with a specific rule, please make sure to quote the rule in 

question. Also be sure to read the rule carefully. I've bolded some text for emphasis 

When reading and applying the various rules in this document, please remember that 

common 

sense always applies in the VEX Robotics Competition. 


Answered: Renamed -- Definition of Scored & Disabled 

Answered: Renamed -- Definition of Scored & Disabled 

Posted by Jesse323Z at 05/15/2012 12:56:44 pm 



of a 


Page 11 of 238










According to Clause 2 of the definition of scored, it says that a scoring sack is scored for being 

on the floor goal if it is not touching any other foam tiles. Would it still be considered scored if 

the scoring objects were over the scoring tile, but not touching it? Also, what happens if a 

scoring objects is touching the lexan wall, will this still be scored? 

My last questions is about a word I found in 

Robots are not permitted to break the plane of their opponents Alliance Starting Tile 

during the 

Autonomous Period. Violations of this rule will result in the offending Alliance automatically 

losing the 

Autonomous Bonus and the offending Robot being disabled. 

What is the definition of "Disabled"? When an alliance does something against the rules, and 

they are disabled, do they have to put there controllers down for the remainder of the match? 

Is their robot moved to the side, or out of the playing field? 

Thank you! 

Re: Definition Questions 


In future, please be sure to follow the Q&A Usage Guidelines when posting questions. 

Specifically, make sure to use specific thread titles and separate questions on different topics 

into separate posts. 

According to Clause 2 of the definition of scored, it says that a scoring sack is scored for being 

on the floor goal if it is not touching any other foam tiles. Would it still be considered scored if 

the scoring objects were over the scoring tile, but not touching it? 

The definition you have quoted is fairly clear. The Scoring Object MUST be touching the Floor 

Goal. 

Also, what happens if a scoring objects is touching the lexan wall, will this still be scored? 

Yes, touching the lexan wall has no impact on the definition of Scored. 

My last questions is about a word I found in 

What is the definition of "Disabled"? When an alliance does something against the rules, and 

Page 12 of 238



they are disabled, do they have to put there controllers down for the remainder of the match? 

Is their robot moved to the side, or out of the playing field? 

Disabled teams will be told to place their controllers on the ground for the duration of the 

match. 

Thank you 



In future, please be sure to follow the Q&A Usage Guidelines when posting questions. 

Specifically, make sure to use specific thread titles and separate questions on different topics 

into separate posts. 


Goal. 

Yes, touching the lexan wall has no impact on the definition of Scored. 

Disabled teams will be told to place their controllers on the ground for the duration of the 

match. 

Thank you 

Thanks for your quick reply. Sorry for the bad title, wasn't to sure what to name it. 



Thanks for your quick reply. Sorry for the bad title, wasn't to sure what to name it. 





Goal. 

Something to add. What happens when a scoring object is touching a starting tile, but is 

breaking the plane of a field tile, but it is not touching the field tile. Does this change the 

score? 



Page 13 of 238



Something to add. What happens when a scoring object is touching a starting tile, but is 

breaking the plane of a field tile, but it is not touching the field tile. Does this change the 

score? 

Before asking questions on this forum, please make sure to read the applicable 

rules/definitions very carefully. 


If the Scoring Object is touching a Floor Goal and not touching any other foam tiles, it counts 

as being Scored. Whether it breaks the plane of another tile is irrelevant, hence not being 

mentioned in the rule. 


Answered: Clarification on Robot Manipulation defined in 

Answered: Clarification on Robot Manipulation defined in <SG4> 

Posted by Ephemeral_Being at 05/15/2012 03:12:31 pm 

Rule reads: 

"Drivers or Coaches also may not change the configuration of the Robot in any way other than 

in the act of fixing the Robot (i.e. it is okay to reposition the robot relative to the field, but it is 

not okay to manually lift up the Robot's arm, unless you are in the act of a repair). Any 

changes to the Robot’s configuration performed during the act of repair must be reversed 

before the Robot can leave the Alliance Starting Tile. 

The intent of this rule is to allow teams to fix Robots that are unable to move, to reposition 

and/or reorient Robots, and to activate additional autonomous modes by interacting with the 

Robot via sensors or buttons. 

The intent of this rule is not to allow teams to manipulate their Robot in such a way that they 

are controlling the Robot via human contact or creating motions that lead to scoring." 

I assume that taking rubber bands off of mechanisms to expand them out of the 18"x18"x18" 

box would be prohibited under this clause? 

If not, would applying force to mechanical elements in order to expand them beyond the box 

be prohibited? This is all assuming you do not allow the robot to score (As in, not moving the 

arm to cause scoring, just folding out, say, an intake). 

Re: Clarification on Robot Manipulation defined in <SG4> 


Rule reads: 

"Drivers or Coaches also may not change the configuration of the Robot in any way other than 



Page 14 of 238









are controlling the Robot via human contact or creating motions that lead to scoring." 

I assume that taking rubber bands off of mechanisms to expand them out of the 18"x18"x18" 

box would be prohibited under this clause? 

This type of action is prohibited as it is clearly a change in configuration of a robot, nor is it an 

act of fixing a robot that is unable to move. 


Answered: More Clarification on a. 

Answered: More Clarification on <G11> a. 

Posted by magicode at 05/15/2012 04:09:44 pm 

 




My question has two parts: 

1. What is the definition of obstructing the field? Is just covering one trough obstruction? What 

about multiple toughs? What if robots are still able to pass under the trough while it it covered? 

What if they are not? 

2. While this post and this do address the question in part, what is "vigorous interaction"? Is 

continued ramming OK? Does intention factor into it? What about willful destruction of 

structure such as a protruding arm? I would assume that this falls under *, but it's nice to 

be able to point to a Q&A post when questioned. Do any of the answers change depending on 

whether it's during autonomous period? What about college game / high school game? 

Referees will have to make a call at one point, and I'm looking for a guideline to go by. 

* 

When reading and applying the various rules in this document, please remember that common 


Re: More Clarification on <G11> a. 


My question has two parts: 

1. What is the definition of obstructing the field? Is just covering one trough obstruction? What 

Page 15 of 238



about multiple toughs? What if robots are still able to pass under the trough while it it covered? 

What if they are not? 

There is no universal definition for obstructing the field. However, a general rule of thumb is 

that if you're expanding outwards horizontally, and you are covering an area longer than one 

trough, you're probably obstructing the field. Devices of this type that are use to cut off access 

to part of the field, or cover goals, will not receive the general protections set forth in . 

2. While this post and this do address the question in part, what is "vigorous interaction"? Is 

continued ramming OK? Does intention factor into it? What about willful destruction of 

structure such as a protruding arm? I would assume that this falls under *, but it's nice to 

be able to point to a Q&A post when questioned. Do any of the answers change depending on 

whether it's during autonomous period? What about college game / high school game? 

Referees will have to make a call at one point, and I'm looking for a guideline to go by. 

Continued ramming would be considered okay, as per . As long as the action is part of 

an attempt to pass through the "wall-bot", the interaction would be allowed. If you're going to 

stick a 4 foot arm out to cover a Trough or a section of the field, you should be prepared for 

your opponent to try go through it. 

These rules will be enforced the same way whether it's Autonomous or Driver Controlled, or 

whether it's College or High School. 

* 

Re: Answered: More Clarification on <G11> a. 


Thank you for the quick reply, Karthik. However, one part of my question has still not been 

clearly answered. What about destruction of structure? If, for example, there is a linkage of 

bars covering part of the field, and your opponent exerts enough force to snap the joints in an 

effort to get through, is that considered legal? Can you have a set of pneumatics whose sole 

purpose is to push through said joints? where is the line (approximately) drawn? And again, 

does intention / autonomous mode / driver mode factor into this at all? 



Thank you for the quick reply, Karthik. However, one part of my question has still not been 

clearly answered. What about destruction of structure? If, for example, there is a linkage of 

bars covering part of the field, and your opponent exerts enough force to snap the joints in an 

effort to get through, is that considered legal? 

If the action is undertaken in an effort to through the obstruction, yes this would be legal. 

Can you have a set of pneumatics whose sole purpose is to push through said joints? 

There are no rules prohibiting this type of design. However, there is only a very limited set of 

circumstances where these types of devices could be used legally. Having them on your robot 

would certain draw extra scrutiny from the referees. 

Page 16 of 238

where is the line (approximately) drawn? 



The line is approximately drawn between actions that are causing damage for the sake of 

damage, and actions which are being undertaken in an effort to get past an obstructive device. 

And again, does intention / autonomous mode / driver mode factor into this at all? 

Intent is a factor as described above. There is no differentiation between Autonomous and 

Driver Controlled mode for this ruling. 



Ok, thank you for explaining that so clearly Karthik. 



Ok, thank you for explaining that so clearly Karthik. 



Answered: more Definition of "Non-shattering" plastic 

Answered: more Definition of "Non-shattering" plastic 


Is UHMW (Ultra High Molecular weight polyethylyne legal this year in the High School VRC? 

Shown here.>Clicky< 

Robert 

Re: more Definition of "Non-shattering" plastic 


Is UHMW (Ultra High Molecular weight polyethylyne legal this year in the High School VRC? 

Shown here.>Clicky< 

Robert 

In the future, please quote the specific rule that your question is addressing. 

Yes, UHMW is a non-shattering plastic, and thus is legal as per of the VEX Sack Attack 

Game Manual. I've quoted the rule below for your convenience. 


f. Non shattering plastic (e.g. Polycarbonate, Garolite) as cut from a single 12" x 24" sheet up 

to 0.063" thick. 


Page 17 of 238




In the future, please quote the specific rule that your question is addressing. 

Yes, UHMW is a non-shattering plastic, and thus is legal as per of the VEX Sack Attack 

Game Manual. I've quoted the rule below for your convenience. 

Yes I will address the rule in the future. And thank you again! 

Robert 



Yes I will address the rule in the future. And thank you again! 




Karthik. I saw that the manual got updated and now says Robots are allowed the 

following additional “non-VEX” components: 




So now is UHMW illegal in High School? 



Karthik. I saw that the manual got updated and now says 


You are correct. The usage of UHMW is now illegal. 



Karthik. I saw that the manual got updated and now says 


All forms of polyethylene will be legal. UHMW is a form of polyethylene, it can be used. Look 

for a rules update shortly to make this very clear. 


Answered: Local metal contractors? 

Answered: Local metal contractors? 

Posted by WCHS Programmer at 05/15/2012 07:48:42 pm 

Page 18 of 238



Could we purchase metal parts from a local sheet metal contractor? 

Re: Local metal contractors? 


Could we purchase metal parts from a local sheet metal contractor? 

No, this would not be legal. As per , parts which are identical to VEX parts can be used. 

However, VEX metal is protected under US patent number 7,934,971. As such, any 

manufacturer who duplicates it would be in violation of patent law. Thus it would not be 

allowed for use in the VRC. 


b. Any parts which are identical to legal VEX parts. For the purposes of this rule, products 

which are identical in all ways except for color are permissible. Note: It is up to inspectors to 

determine whether a component is “identical” to an official VEX component. 


Answered: Clarification on duration of Rule 

Answered: Clarification on duration of Rule <G11a> 

Posted by Telemascope at 05/15/2012 08:06:09 pm 

 




Can I have a clarification if this rule ONLY applies when the robot is currently expanded, or if it 

applies to any robot that has expanded at any point during the match? I thought the wording 

was a little ambiguous. 

Also, if it is only when the robot is currently expanded, is it possible to give some kind of 

outline of when you would consider a robot "retracted", and thus, back under the protection of 

? 

Thanks. 

Re: Clarification on duration of Rule <G11a> 


Can I have a clarification if this rule ONLY applies when the robot is currently expanded, or if it 

applies to any robot that has expanded at any point during the match? I thought the wording 

was a little ambiguous. 

It only applies when the robot is expanded and in the process of obstructing the field. This rule 

removes protections when an opposing robot is trying to pass through the obstruction 

created by the obstructing robot. 

Also, if it is only when the robot is currently expanded, is it possible to give some kind of 

outline of when you would consider a robot "retracted", and thus, back under the protection of 

Page 19 of 238

? 



The best guideline we can provide is that the protections of would return once the robot 

is no longer obstructing the field. 


Answered: Pressure Gauge as Nonfunctional Decoration - d. Clarification 

Answered: Pressure Gauge as Nonfunctional Decoration - <R7>d. Clarification 

Posted by dontworryaboutit at 05/16/2012 02:08:27 am 


d. Teams may add non-functional decorations provided that these do not affect the robot 

performance in any significant way or affect the outcome of the match. These decorations 

must be in the spirit of the competition. Inspectors will have final say in what is considered 

“nonfunctional”. 

Would an air pressure gauge such as this one be legal for use in Sack Attack (new game, new 

Q&A, right?)? This is of course assuming it meets all the conditions of being a nonfunctional 

decoration (does not touch game objects, does not significantly affect the pneumatic system, is 

not used as a structural component, etc.). As with any other nonfunctional decoration, its 

effects are purely visual and thus will provide no advantage to a robot during a match of VEX 

Sack Attack (not affect the outcome of the match). 

Or would it not be allowed because it is not a "decoration"? If it is not allowed because it is not 

a "decoration", if we put pretty stickers on it could we use it? 

How would any ruling here interact with rulings made by the Head Inspector at an event; could 

an Inspector go against this ruling because the rules say that Inspectors have the final say? 

Sorry for multiple questions in one thread, but I'm sure it's better than making a new thread for 

each one of these questions. 


Re: Pressure Gauge as Nonfunctional Decoration - <R7>d. Clarification 


Would an air pressure gauge such as this one be legal for use in Sack Attack (new game, new 

Q&A, right?)? This is of course assuming it meets all the conditions of being a nonfunctional 

decoration (does not touch game objects, does not significantly affect the pneumatic system, is 

not used as a structural component, etc.). As with any other nonfunctional decoration, its 

effects are purely visual and thus will provide no advantage to a robot during a match of VEX 

Sack Attack (not affect the outcome of the match). 

The device you linked to is functional and would not qualify under 





Page 20 of 238




How would any ruling here interact with rulings made by the Head Inspector at an event; could 

an Inspector go against this ruling because the rules say that Inspectors have the final say? 

This question is answered in rule of the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual. I've bolded 

some text for emphasis. 

All teams must adhere to all VEX Robotics Competition Rules as they are written, and 

must abide by the listed intent of the rules. Every team has the opportunity to ask for official 

rules interpretations in the VEX Robotics Competition Question & Answer Forum. Any 

responses in this Q&A forum should be treated as official rulings from the VEX Robotics 

Competition Game Design Committee, and represent the correct and official interpretation of 

the VEX Robotics Competition Rules. 

Thus, all event officials are expected to treat the Q&A in the same way they treat the manual, 

and enforce it accordingly. 

Sorry for multiple questions in one thread, but I'm sure it's better than making a new thread for 

each one of these questions. 

Our preference, as indicated in the Q&A Usage Guidelines is for there to be a separate thread 

for each question on an unrelated topic. In this case your two questions addressed two 

separate rules, so two separate threads would be a better fit. 



Answered: Clarification on <G11a> 


Rule reads: 






Can you please give a measure of how wide a robot has to become before it is no longer 

protected under ? I need to know before I order parts for my design. 

Re: Clarification on <G11a> 


Page 21 of 238



Can you please give a measure of how wide a robot has to become before it is no longer 

protected under ? I need to know before I order parts for my design. 

We cannot provide an exact measurement, as obstructing the field is very context specific. 

However, a good estimate is that if your robot is obstructing more than the length of one 

trough, you are most likely now subject to . However, this does not mean that robot 

which has expanded to less than that length is immune from . 



If you can clarify these examples, I would be very much obliged. 

1. A robot that has a 30 inch "shovel" that folds out horizontally, and is placing it over the 

opposing trough to prevent scoring while remaining stationary 

2. A robot that has a 20 inch "shovel" that folds out horizontally, and is placing it over the top of 

the opposing trough to prevent scoring while remaining stationary 

3. A robot that has an 18 inch "shovel" that folds out horizontally, and is placing it over the top 

of the opposing trough to prevent scoring while remaining stationary 



5. A robot with a 12 inch "shovel" that does NOT fold out horizontally, and is placing it over the 

top of the opposing trough to prevent scoring while remaining stationary 


top of the opposing trough to prevent scoring while moving along the trough 


the opposing trough to prevent scoring while moving along the trough 

Sorry, I know it's a lot to ask for a ruling on, but I would like to avoid having my robot in any 

danger. 



If you can clarify these examples, I would be very much obliged. 

1. A robot that has a 30 inch "shovel" that folds out horizontally, and is placing it over the 

opposing trough to prevent scoring while remaining stationary 



3. A robot that has an 18 inch "shovel" that folds out horizontally, and is placing it over the top 

Page 22 of 238



of the opposing trough to prevent scoring while remaining stationary 




top of the opposing trough to prevent scoring while remaining stationary 


top of the opposing trough to prevent scoring while moving along the trough 


the opposing trough to prevent scoring while moving along the trough 

Sorry, I know it's a lot to ask for a ruling on, but I would like to avoid having my robot in any 

danger. 

We understand that you are asking very precise questions in order to avoid your robot running 

into any ruling difficulties, but we are unable to give concrete answers to hypothetical 

situations based on snapshots of robots. Here are some rules of thumb that should clarify 

things for you. 

- Devices which expand horizontally and obstruct the field are generally bad 

- Using arms or shovels to cover troughs, but have not expanded horizontally are generally 

acceptable 

We expect teams to try and block goals. However, if you expand horizontally in an effort to do 

this, you do lose the protections set forth in 

Basically, if you design a robot to expand to block the field, you should be prepared to handle 

vigorous interaction from your opponents who are trying to penetrate the blockade. 



Hm. So, even if I expand by 2 inches on either side to reach a 20 inch width on an intake, I 

would no longer be protected by if I am playing defensively (eg. covering the troughs). 

That rule seems to have been clarified fairly well, thanks. 

Second question. Can you take the various "shovel" sizes above and say if they qualify as 

being "too large", even of they are not used defensively to no longer be protected under 

? Specifically, I mean at 30 inches, 20 inches, 18 inches, and 12 inches. 



Second question. Can you take the various "shovel" sizes above and say if they qualify as 

being "too large", even of they are not used defensively to no longer be protected under 

? Specifically, I mean at 30 inches, 20 inches, 18 inches, and 12 inches. 

Page 23 of 238



If these devices are not being used to obstruct the field, they would still be protected by 

. 


Answered: wall-bots 

Answered: wall-bots 


What is going to be the official definition of a "wall-bot"??? 

This is the rule that I am referring to, . e.g. There is no penalty for pinning a “wall-bot” 

Thanks Again. 

Re: wall-bots 


What is going to be the official definition of a "wall-bot"??? 

This is the rule that I am referring to, . e.g. There is no penalty for pinning a 

“wall-bot” 

Thanks Again. 

Before posting, please be sure to reading the following Q&A Usage Guidelines, specifically 

where we ask that you read the previous Q&A entries on the same topic. 

I suggest you review these posts: 





There is no specific definition of "wall-bot", as there is no direct rule reference to a "wall-bot", 

except when used as an example. Here's the specific rule in question: 

Robots which have expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field will undergo 

even more scrutiny under , and will not be protected under . e.g. If you choose to 




Teams who expand horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field, lose the protections of . 

This means an opponent robot would not be penalized for pinning them. 



Page 24 of 238

Answered: Clarification on <Trapping Definition> 

Posted by Clean Sweep Man at 05/16/2012 05:48:38 pm 



(Game Definitions Page 6) 

"Trapping – A Robot is considered to be trapped if an opposing Robot has restricted it 

into a small, confined area of the field, approximately the size of one foam field tile or less, and 

has not provided an avenue for escape." 

Just for official clarification, if a "wallbot" restricts the opposing robots into a space (such as 

three/four field tiles), but does not provided an avenue for escape is this legal. I would assume 

this is legal, but i'm not sure. 

Thanks in advance. 

Re: Clarification on <Trapping Definition> 


(Game Definitions Page 6) 

"Trapping – A Robot is considered to be trapped if an opposing Robot has restricted it into a 

small, confined area of the field, approximately the size of one foam field tile or less, and has 

not provided an avenue for escape." 

Just for official clarification, if a "wallbot" restricts the opposing robots into a space (such as 

two field tiles), but does not provided an avenue for escape is this legal. I would assume this is 

legal, but i'm not sure. 

Your analysis of this definition is correct, this would be legal. 

Re: Answered: Clarification on <Trapping Definition> 


Wow that took less than a minute for a response. :) 

Great Job and thank you Karthik. :) 

Re: Answered: Clarification on <Trapping Definition> 


Wow that took less than a minute for a response. :) 

Great Job and thank you Karthik. :) 

You caught me at the right moment. :) 



Answered: G8 Assisting Trough Blocking? 

Answered: G8 Assisting Trough Blocking? 

Posted by vamfun at 05/16/2012 08:08:20 pm 


of this rule 

will result in a Disqualification. 

Page 25 of 238



Is the intention of this rule to also prevent robots from scoring over a blocked trough by a 

defensive robot? I. e. if a defensive robot puts a 30 in beam at the bottom of a trough and the 

opposing team intentionally drops a sack on it then it is disqualified? 

Re: G8 Assisting Trough Blocking? 


Is the intention of this rule to also prevent robots from scoring over a blocked trough by a 

defensive robot? I. e. if a defensive robot puts a 30 in beam at the bottom of a trough and the 

opposing team intentionally drops a sack on it then it is disqualified? 

was updated on 05/22 to address this issue. The new version states: 

Robots are not permitted to intentionally place Sacks, while not in the process of 

Scoring, on an opposing robot. Violations of this rule will result in a Disqualification. 

Thus, Robots that place stacks on opposing robots while in the process of Scoring, will not be 

penalized. 


Answered: Clarification on G11 Tipping Wallbots 

Answered: Clarification on G11 Tipping Wallbots 

Posted by 1412E at 05/16/2012 10:14:52 pm 






Because wallbots aren't protected under G11, would it be legal to pick up the side of the 

wallbot somehow and drive under it to the other side? (Assuming my bot could do it of course) 

:) 

Thanks 

Re: Clarification on G11 Tipping Wallbots 


Because wallbots aren't protected under G11, would it be legal to pick up the side of the 

wallbot somehow and drive under it to the other side? (Assuming my bot could do it of course) 

:) 

Thanks 

If a robot has expanded in an effort to obstruct the field, the strategy you have described would 

be legal, as per , which you so kindly quoted. 

Re: Answered: Clarification on G11 Tipping Wallbots 

Posted by 1412E at 05/18/2012 01:45:37 am 

Ok Thanks!:D 

Page 26 of 238

Re: Answered: Clarification on G11 Tipping Wallbots 


Ok Thanks!:D 



Answered: It seems too overpowering. 

Answered: <G11> It seems too overpowering. 

Posted by Fido488 at 05/16/2012 11:29:48 pm 



VEX Sack Attack is intended to be an offensive game. Teams that partake in solely 

defensive strategies will undergo extra scrutiny in regards to . In the case where 

referees are forced to make a judgment call on interaction between a defensive and offensive 

Robot, the referees will err on the side of the offensive Robot. 






All teams are responsible for the actions of their Robots. 

This rule seems to make it impossible for a team to make any attempt at preventing another 

teams robot from going somewhere. 

If any part of your robot extends horizontally out of it's original sizing cube (18 X 18 X 18 HS. 

or 24X24X24 & 15X15X15 College) then your robot will and are at risk of breaking G11. 

Even if the element that is expanding is an intake or an arm or a scoop. If this robot tries to 

prevent another robot from, say for example, getting back to it's starting tile then it will no 

longer be protected by G11. 

This robot will have filled the two criteria: horizontal expansion and an effort to obstruct the 

field. 

Blocking has been something that has been a part of VEX competition for as long as I have 

been competing with VEX. It is the reason that teams choose to make their robots have 

extremely strong gear ratios or invent new ways of shifting from high torque to high speed 

(gearshifts). 

With this ruling you are forced to yield to any robot that is trying to get anywhere on the field or 

risk loosing G11 protection. If you don't you can be considered blocking. 

I can see this turning into VEX battlebots. There has to be some sort of limit on how much 

dammage one robot can impart on another. If you don't you shouldn't be surprised if at Worlds 

2013 you see robots with saws or large smashing implements on the front of their robots for 

Page 27 of 238



getting though anything that stands in their way. I am not looking to be nit-picky but I am 

concerned about what could eventually result from allowing such interactions to take place. 

What parts, if any, are in no way allowed to be damaged by another team? 

Cortex? Batteries? Motors? Pistons? Power Expander? Wires? 






Competition. 

Continued ramming would be considered okay, as per . As long as the action is part of 

an attempt to pass through the "wall-bot", the interaction would be allowed. If you're going to 

stick a 4 foot arm out to cover a Trough or a section of the field, you should be prepared for 

your opponent to try go through it. 

magicode ==> If, for example, there is a linkage of bars covering part of the field, and your 

opponent exerts enough force to snap the joints in an effort to get through, is that considered 

legal? 

If the action is undertaken in an effort to through the obstruction, yes this would be legal. 

Where is the line drawn? 

(Assume all intentions are to get past the obstruction.) 

Re: <G11> It seems too overpowering. 


If you don't you shouldn't be surprised if at Worlds 2013 you see robots with saws or large 

smashing implements on the front of their robots for getting though anything that stands in 

their way. 

What parts, if any, are in no way allowed to be damaged by another team? 

Cortex? Batteries? Motors? Pistons? Power Expander? Wires? 

Where is the line drawn? 

(Assume all intentions are to get past the obstruction.) 

Lets start off with the most important rule in the manual. 

Page 28 of 238




common 


If anyone actually think it's legal to use saws and large smashing devices in the VEX Robotics 

Competition, they need to sit down and reevaluate things. In addition, there's an actual rule 

against this. 


a. Those that could potentially damage playing field components. 

b. Those that could potentially damage other competing robots. 

If a robot has expanded in an effort to obstruct the field, you are no longer protected by 

while teams try and get past your obstruction. What this means is that you should expect and 

be prepared for vigourous interaction from the team trying to get past you. If your robot gets 

damaged while they are trying to get past you, they are not responsible. However, if their sole 

purpose is just to damage your robot, they would obviously penalized. As quoted above, 

intentionally ripping out wires is an example of something that would always be penalized. 


Answered: Clarification on SG8 


Posted by meng at 05/17/2012 12:14:02 am 

Hi, 


of this rule 


I know placing sacks ON opposing robots is illegal. But how about the following: 

1) Does that mean that intentionally building a sack wall around opposing robots is legal? 

2) Or maybe not as extreme as a sack wall, but how about pushing/placing sacks in such a 

way that it will block the movement of the opposing robots? Is that legal? 

Thanks :) 

Re: Clarification on SG8 


1) Does that mean that intentionally building a sack wall around opposing robots is legal? 

2) Or maybe not as extreme as a sack wall, but how about pushing/placing sacks in such a 

way that it will block the movement of the opposing robots? Is that legal? 

Page 29 of 238



There are no rules prohibiting the strategies which you have described. As long as you are not 

putting Sacks ON Robots, you have not violated . 


Posted by meng at 05/18/2012 01:41:29 am 

There are no rules prohibiting the strategies which you have described. As long as you are not 

putting Sacks ON Robots, you have not violated . 

Thanks Karthik. 

I think we will be seeing a new generation of wall-bot for this game... robot that builds wall. 

Think it is going to be interesting.... thanks once again :) 



Thanks Karthik. 

I think we will be seeing a new generation of wall-bot for this game... robot that builds wall. 

Think it is going to be interesting.... thanks once again :) 



Answered: pinning against trough 

Answered: pinning against trough 

Posted by tabor473 at 05/17/2012 03:13:07 am 

a while ago i posed this question to the community 

"In regards to blocking someones movement and restraining them to a 2 foot by 2 foot area 

what if you ram a robot into a trough but it is to tall to go under 

technically it is there fault that they can't go underneath but does that still count as restraining 

movement." 

then after a very logical argument about robots not being about to walk over other robots being 

there fault too i rewrote the question 

What about if a robot has its arm up but it is capable of driving under when its arm is down. 

Do you think it would not count as pinning cause they could lower there arm. 

So my question 

If a robot has the capability of driving under the trough when its arm is down and you push it 

against the trough when their arm was up to force them to lower the arm? 

I see the strategic benefits of this and wanted to check 

Re: pinning against trough 


a while ago i posed this question to the community 

"In regards to blocking someones movement and restraining them to a 2 foot by 2 foot area 

Page 30 of 238



what if you ram a robot into a trough but it is to tall to go under 

technically it is there fault that they can't go underneath but does that still count as restraining 

movement." 

then after a very logical argument about robots not being about to walk over other robots being 

there fault too i rewrote the question 

What about if a robot has its arm up but it is capable of driving under when its arm is down. 

Do you think it would not count as pinning cause they could lower there arm. 

So my question 

If a robot has the capability of driving under the trough when its arm is down and you push it 

against the trough when their arm was up to force them to lower the arm? 

I see the strategic benefits of this and wanted to check 

Teams who are being pinned must make every reasonable effort to exit the pin. So the 

judgement of whether or not this is a pin is very context dependent. If the pinned robot has the 

ability to lower their arm to exit the pin, they should do so, and pinning would not be called. 

However, in some cases of pinning, it may be impossible for them to lower their arm, as the 

pinning robot may be in the way. In this scenario it would be considered pinning. 

The referees will make the final determination in these cases, as we cannot give a specific 

ruling on such hypothetical situations. 

Re: Answered: pinning against trough 

Posted by tabor473 at 05/17/2012 09:59:22 pm 

Thank you 

I see this becoming a serious problem during the season and wanted to verify the rule. 

Re: Answered: pinning against trough 


Thank you 

I see this becoming a serious problem during the season and wanted to verify the rule. 

You're welcome. 


Answered: Use of non VEX Metal 

Answered: Use of non VEX Metal 


Is it legal to use non-VEX metal under ? 





Re: Answered: Use of non VEX Metal 


Page 31 of 238

Is it legal to use non-VEX metal under ? 



No, this would not be legal. The intent of is to allow teams to purchase readily available 

commodities such as screws, nuts, standoffs, tie-wraps, from local suppliers. VEX metal does 

not fall under this category. 


Answered: SG8 Clarification 

Answered: SG8 Clarification 

Posted by bgambsky at 05/17/2012 06:14:48 pm 


of this rule 


I understand that sacks cannot be placed anywhere on the robot. I have a few questions 

pertaining to this for clarification. 

Is this only for match loads? or anytime during the match by other robots? 

My second question, if there was a goal capper, whether it be the high goal or a trough capper, 

would it be illegal to place a sack (from the opposing team) on top of the capping part of the 

mechanism? Reason being is that goals extend to the ceiling, so if placing a sack on top of a 

robot that has covered the trough or high goal, would that sack count? 

Thanks in advance :) 

Re: SG8 Clarification 




The intent of this rule is to prevent teams from using Sacks to damage or disrupt opposing 

robots by dropping them on the robot. However, it was not intended to penalize teams who 

were trying to score in a Goal that was being blocked by an opposing robot. This new wording 

makes that clear. If you are trying to Score (i.e. dropping Sacks in a Goal), you will not be 

penalized if your Sacks land on an opposing robot. 

Just to clarify a little further, if the sack dropped on a robot that was over the goal, and the 

sack landed in such a place that was inside the goals extension to the ceiling, does that sack 

actually count as scored if that robot was over the goal by the end of the match? Or does this 

drop by the robot that was trying to score ONLY get protected from disqualification and the 

object would not be scored? 

Thank you! :D 

Re: SG8 Clarification 


Page 32 of 238




of this rule 


I understand that sacks cannot be placed anywhere on the robot. I have a few questions 

pertaining to this for clarification. 

Is this only for match loads? or anytime during the match by other robots? 

Please note that was updated on 05/22: 



Thus, this rule applies at all times during the Match, except when a Robot is in the process of 

Scoring. 

My second question, if there was a goal capper, whether it be the high goal or a trough capper, 

would it be illegal to place a sack (from the opposing team) on top of the capping part of the 

mechanism? 

This would be legal, please see the above ruling. 

Reason being is that goals extend to the ceiling, so if placing a sack on top of a robot that has 

covered the trough or high goal, would that sack count? 

Take a look at the second part of the following Q&A for an answer to your question: 


Re: Answered: SG8 Clarification 


Thank you Karthik, I saw that you posted on that thread right after I posted on this thread 

again. 

Thanks again!!! :D 

Re: Answered: SG8 Clarification 


Thank you Karthik, I saw that you posted on that thread right after I posted on this thread 

again. 

Thanks again!!! :D 



Answered: Question about 

Page 33 of 238

Answered: Question about <SG3> 




A Robot cannot Pin or Trap an opposing Robot for more than five seconds during the 

Driver Controlled Period. A Pin or Trap is officially over once the Pinning team has moved 

away from the teams are separated by 2 feet (approximately one (1) foam tile). After ending a 

Pin or Trap, a team may not Pin or Trap the same Robot again for a duration of 5 seconds. If a 

referee determines this rule to be violated, the offending Robot will be Disqualified for the 

match. There is no penalty for Pinning during the Autonomous Period. 

The rule does not state it outright, but you have said that the robot being pinned must take any 

opportunity to escape the pin, or else the pin will not be called. 

For simplicity, let's say that in this situation, a red robot is pinning a blue robot. If the blue robot 

has more torque and more traction than the red robot, and the blue robot could push the red 

robot away, would this count as an opportunity to escape the pin? If the blue robot chose not 

to push the red robot, would the pin be called? 

Re: Question about <SG3> 


The rule does not state it outright, but you have said that the robot being pinned must take any 

opportunity to escape the pin, or else the pin will not be called. 

For simplicity, let's say that in this situation, a red robot is pinning a blue robot. If the blue robot 

has more torque and more traction than the red robot, and the blue robot could push the red 

robot away, would this count as an opportunity to escape the pin? If the blue robot chose not 

to push the red robot, would the pin be called? 

Referees will be looking to see if teams are trying to exit a pin. If a red robot is pinning a blue 

robot, and at no point does the blue robot try to exit the pin, (e.g. it never sends power to its 

drive motors), this would not be pinning. However, referees should not be expected to know 

the torque and traction difference between robots. 

Basically, if you're being pinned, make it blatantly clear to the referees that you're trying to exit 

the pin. 



Referees will be looking to see if teams are trying to exit a pin. If a red robot is pinning a blue 

robot, and at no point does the blue robot try to exit the pin, (e.g. it never sends power to its 

drive motors), this would not be pinning. However, referees should not be expected to know 

the torque and traction difference between robots. 

Basically, if you're being pinned, make it blatantly clear to the referees that you're trying to exit 

the pin. 

Alright, thanks! 


Page 34 of 238


Alright, thanks 





Answered: Renamed - Sacks scored in multiple goals 

Answered: Renamed - Sacks scored in multiple goals 

Posted by Vex1622 at 05/19/2012 03:38:11 am 

What happens when a sack is balanced on the piece of plastic in between the two goals and is 

in the the vertical plane of both goals? 

Matt 

Re: Scoring in high goal/trough 


What happens when a sack is balanced on the piece of plastic in between the two goals and is 

in the the vertical plane of both goals? 

Matt 

In the future, please be sure to search the manual carefully before posting questions in this 

forum. The Q&A usage guidelines provide some excellent tips to help make your questions 

more efficient for the entire community. 

The answer to your question is actually right in the VEX Sack Attack Manual in the definition of 

Scored. I've quoted the pertinent section below, bolding some text for emphasis: 



of a Trough or High Goal, projected upwards and infinitely perpendicular to the playing field. 








For a Scoring Object to count under either clause, it must remain in a Scored position, if/when 

all Robots were removed from the field. (By removed, we mean removing the robot and its 

contents from the field. Referees will be instructed to gently pull robots away from the Goal if 

necessary) i.e. The Scoring Object must not be supported by the Robot. 

If a Sack is in multiple Goals of the same type, it counts for both Alliances. 

Page 35 of 238

Re: Renamed - Sacks scored in multiple goals 

Posted by Vex1622 at 05/27/2012 03:14:59 am 



Does this rule still apply in the programming and Robot skills because it will probably have 

some people make some interest contraption for doing that if it does? 

Matt 

Re: Renamed - Sacks scored in multiple goals 


Does this rule still apply in the programming and Robot skills because it will probably have 

some people make some interest contraption for doing that if it does? 

Matt 

Yes, the rule still applies for the Programming and Robot Skills Challenges. 


Answered: Clarification about 

Answered: Clarification about <SG8> 

Posted by Cojust at 05/19/2012 11:03:01 am 

As per 

 

i. Furthermore, teams that undertake this type of obstructive strategy would not be 

protected by . e.g. There is no penalty for pinning a “wall-bot” 

and 

 

Robots are not permitted to intentionally place Sacks on an opposing robot. Violations of this 

rule 


Am I right to say that, if I were to build a robot that covered a trough, the opposing team is 

allowed to try to get past me by ramming and such, but if they were to drop sacks on my robot, 

it would be illegal? 

If it is legal for them to drop sacks on my robot and the sacks are touching my robot and above 

the trough when the game ends, would it be counted as being scored? 

Re: Clarification about <SG8> 


Am I right to say that, if I were to build a robot that covered a trough, the opposing team is 

Page 36 of 238



allowed to try to get past me by ramming and such, but if they were to drop sacks on my robot, 

it would be illegal? 

Please see the following Q&A entry, which discusses this exact situation: 


It is not illegal to drop Sacks on an opposing Robot while in the process of trying to Score. 

If it is legal for them to drop sacks on my robot and the sacks are touching my robot and above 

the trough when the game ends, would it be counted as being scored? 

Let's take a look at the final part of the definition of Scored from the VEX Sack Attack Game 

Manual. 





Thus, if the Sacks remain in a Scored position if/when all robots are gently pulled away from 

the Goal, then yes, they would count as being Scored. 


Answered: Pneumatics Pressure Gauge in College 

Answered: Pneumatics Pressure Gauge in College 

Posted by StimpNZ at 05/20/2012 11:21:26 am 

In the college competition, non-vex sensors are allowed to be used on a robot as long as they 

meet the flowing conditions: 

7. There is NO restriction on sensors and additional electronics used for sensing and 

processing 

except as follows: 

a. Sensors and Electronics MUST be connected to the VEX Microcontroller, and can only be 

connected via any of the externally accessible ports. 

etc. (unrelated) 

Does this mean that an analogue (needle and dial) pressure sensor could be used? It is illegal 

in the high school game, as it is functional, and non-vex. But the only way in which it violates 

the college rules is that it does not connect to the microcontroller. Does this mean that in the 

college game, such a gauge could be used provided that it was linked to the microcontroller, 

even if the link was a useless piece of wire soldered on? Or a gauge that had both dial, and 

serial/electronic outputs? 

Re: Pneumatics Pressure Gauge in College 


In the college competition, non-vex sensors are allowed to be used on a robot as long as they 

Page 37 of 238

meet the flowing conditions: 



Does this mean that an analogue (needle and dial) pressure sensor could be used? It is illegal 

in the high school game, as it is functional, and non-vex. But the only way in which it violates 

the college rules is that it does not connect to the microcontroller. Does this mean that in the 

college game, such a gauge could be used provided that it was linked to the microcontroller, 

even if the link was a useless piece of wire soldered on? Or a gauge that had both dial, and 

serial/electronic outputs? 

Yes, both usages you've described would be legal in the College Challenge. 


Answered: Mechanically Functional Sensors in College 

Answered: Mechanically Functional Sensors in College 


Appendix F states the following in Robot Rule Modification 7. 

There is NO restriction on sensors and additional electronics used for sensing and processing 

except as follows: 

a. Sensors and Electronics MUST be connected to the VEX Microcontroller, and can only be 

connected via any of the externally accessible ports. 

b. Sensors and Electronics CANNOT directly electrically interface with the VEX Motors. 

c. The additional Sensors and Electronics may only receive power from any of the following: 

i. Directly from the VEX Microcontroller via any externally accessible port. 

ii. From an additional VEX 7.2V Robot Battery or from a VEX 9.6V Transmitter 

Battery (only one (1) additional battery can be used for sensor power.) 

d. Additional Motors, Servos and Actuators are NOT allowed. 

e. No R/F communication is allowed between robots. However other non R/F forms of 

communication are permitted. (i.e. IR, ultrasonic, etc.) 

Are sensors allowed to serve a mechanically functional purpose as well, such as being a 

counterweight? What restrictions are placed on this? 

Re: Mechanically Functional Sensors in College 


Are sensors allowed to serve a mechanically functional purpose as well, such as being a 

counterweight? What restrictions are placed on this? 

Provided no other rules are being violated, this would be legal. 


Answered: Field Damage and a. 

Answered: Field Damage and <G11>a. 


Page 38 of 238

a says: 



Robots which have expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field will undergo even 



If an offensive robot attempts to bypass a wallbot (for example, by tipping and pulling it), and 

the field is damaged in the process (for example, the wallbot's axles gouge slits into the foam 

tiles), which robot will be at fault? 

Re: Field Damage and <G11>a. 


a says: 

If an offensive robot attempts to bypass a wallbot (for example, by tipping and pulling it), and 

the field is damaged in the process (for example, the wallbot's axles gouge slits into the foam 

tiles), which robot will be at fault? 

This situation is highly context dependent and as such we cannot provide a blanket ruling. The 

referees who can see the entire specific scenario, not just a snapshot, will make a ruling if this 

were to occur. 


Answered: Mounting hardware for solenoids 

Answered: Mounting hardware for solenoids 

Posted by Chuck_Glick at 05/21/2012 07:43:47 pm 

Just would like an official ruling for mounting methods of VEX legal solenoids. As we are 

allowed to use any available #6 and #8 hardware that is no longer than 2", can the addition of 

#4 hardware be added into this clause for the mounting of solenoids only? 

The only reasoning behind this question is to provide teams with a more secure method of 

attaching solenoids to their robots than zip ties. 


c. Any 6-32, 8-32, M3 or M4 screw up to 2" long, and any commercially available nut to fit 

these 

screws. 

Thank you for consideration, 

Chuck 

Re: Mounting hardware for solinoids 


Just would like an official ruling for mounting methods of VEX legal solenoids. As we are 

allowed to use any available #6 and #8 hardware that is no longer than 2", can the addition of 

Page 39 of 238



#4 hardware be added into this clause for the mounting of solenoids only? 

The only reasoning behind this question is to provide teams with a more secure method of 

attaching solenoids to their robots than zip ties. 

Thank you for consideration, 

Chuck 

Rule has been updated on 05/22 as follows. The new section is bolded for emphasis. 


c. Any #4, #6, #8, M2, M2.5, M3 or M4 screw up to 2" long, and any commercially available nut 

to fit these screws. 

Thus, the use of #4 hardware is now permitted. 

Re: Answered: Mounting hardware for solenoids 

Posted by Chuck_Glick at 05/22/2012 10:21:52 pm 

Beautiful. I can make pretty robots even more pretty now. You rock. 

-Chuck 

Re: Answered: Mounting hardware for solenoids 


Beautiful. I can make pretty robots even more pretty now. You rock. 



Answered: R6 List 

Answered: R6 List 

Posted by railrhodes at 05/24/2012 04:08:40 pm 

Sack Attack R6 refers to VEXrobotics for the Official VEX Products. What is the official listing; 

I still have 3-wire motors but did not see them listed for sale? 

Re: R6 List 


Sack Attack R6 refers to VEXrobotics for the Official VEX Products. What is the official listing; 

I still have 3-wire motors but did not see them listed for sale? 

3-Wire Motors have been discountinued, thus they fall under of the VEX Sack Attack 

Game Manual. 

Page 40 of 238



Official Robotics Components from the VEX Robotics Design System which have been 

discontinued are still legal for competition use. However teams must be cognizant of 

Thus, the 3-Wire Motors are legal. 

Re: Answered: R6 List 

Posted by railrhodes at 05/29/2012 04:24:58 pm 

I was hoping for a explicit list of legal items. Last year we had an issue at a regional and it took 

a discussion between several judges to make a ruling. 

Re: Answered: R6 List 


I was hoping for a explicit list of legal items. Last year we had an issue at a regional and it took 

a discussion between several judges to make a ruling. 

The explicit list is the collection of all products available at www.vexrobotics.com, minus the 

exceptions mentioned in the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual. If there is any issue over the 

legality of part, please remember which is quoted below for your convenience. Some 

text has been bolded for emphasis. 

Robots may be built ONLY from Official Robot Components from the VEX Robotics 

Design System unless otherwise specifically noted within these rules. 

a. During inspections if there is a question about whether something is an official VEX 

component, a team will be required to provide documentation to an inspector, which proves 

the component’s source. Such types of documentation include receipts, part numbers, or other 

printed documentation. 


Answered: Questions 

Answered: <SG4> Questions 


During the Autonomous Period, Drivers and Coaches may handle their own Robot 

while the Robot is in contact with their own Alliance Starting Tile (i.e. the tile the Robot started 

the match on), within the following restrictions. 

i.Drivers and Coaches may only interact with a Robot if it is touching their own Alliance 

Starting Tile and no part of the Robot is touching a gray foam tile, except the interaction 

allowed in 

ii. If any part of a Robot is touching a grey foam tile, the only interaction that will be allowed is 

to bring the Robot fully into the legal Alliance Starting Tile, into a legal position as per 

iii. After any legal interaction with the robot by Drivers and Coaches, and prior to the robot 

attempting to score or interact with Game Objects, the robot must be in a position such that it 

is touching the legal Alliance Starting Tile and no part of the Robot is touching a gray foam tile; 

a legal position as per . i.e. Before the Robot leaves the Alliance Starting Tile, Drivers 

and Coaches may not be touching the robot. If Drivers and Coaches touch the Robot again, it 

must be touching a legal Alliance Starting Tile and it must immediately be brought fully back 

onto the tile. Note: Robots that hang over the edge of the Alliance Starting Tile, but do not 

touch any gray foam tiles, are considered to be in legal positions for interaction as per 

Page 41 of 238

I have some questions about this rule: 



1. If the robot is touching its alliance starting tile, and not the grey tiles, is it legal to reorient the 

robot into a position where it is touching both the alliance tile and the grey tiles, like in the 

picture? I know that says that before the robot attempts to score or interact with 

game objects, it must be fully within the starting tile. However, I am asking whether it would be 

legal to reposition it like in the picture and have it stay there (not moving again, and not 

attempting to score afterward). 

http://raptorchat.weebly.com/uploads/6/6/6/2/6662532/3424796_orig.png 

2. If the robot is touching the grey tile and the alliance starting tile, and I pull it fully onto the 

alliance starting tile as per , can I then reorient it as per , or must I leave it 

alone after that? 

Re: <SG4> Questions 


I have some questions about this rule: 

1. If the robot is touching its alliance starting tile, and not the grey tiles, is it legal to reorient the 

robot into a position where it is touching both the alliance tile and the grey tiles, like in the 

picture? I know that says that before the robot attempts to score or interact with 

game objects, it must be fully within the starting tile. However, I am asking whether it would be 

legal to reposition it like in the picture and have it stay there (not moving again, and not 

attempting to score afterward). 

No, the robot must be left in a legal starting position as per , i.e. It must be touching the 

Alliance Starting Tile and not touching a gray foam tile. 

2. If the robot is touching the grey tile and the alliance starting tile, and I pull it fully onto the 

alliance starting tile as per , can I then reorient it as per , or must I leave it 

alone after that? 

Yes, you may reorient the robot as per 


Posted by The VEX Raptors at 05/29/2012 01:56:14 am 

No, the robot must be left in a legal starting position as per , i.e. It must be touching the 

Alliance Starting Tile and not touching a gray foam tile. 

Yes, you may reorient the robot as per 

Okay, thanks for clearing that up! 

Page 42 of 238



Okay, thanks for clearing that up 



Answered: College: Plastic Block Questions 

Answered: College: Plastic Block Questions 

Posted by AndrewRemmers1902 at 05/29/2012 03:32:47 pm 



2. Teams are allowed to fabricate their own unique VEX parts from the following additional 

items, for 

each of their robots: 

a. One (1) piece of plastic block 6” x 6” x 1” 

i. Examples of “plastic block” are PVC, Delrin, and ABS 

I was wondering if Polyurethane would be a legal meterial to be used within the plastic block? 

- Andrew 

Re: College: Plastic Block Questions 


I was wondering if Polyurethane would be a legal meterial to be used within the plastic block? 

- Andrew 

No, Polyurethane would not be considered legal under this rule. 

Re: Answered: College: Plastic Block Questions 


Thanks Karthik! 

What about PTFE or Teflon? 

- Andrew 


Posted by Karthik at 05/31/2012 02:21:04 am 


What about PTFE or Teflon? 


PTFE (Teflon) is not permitted. 



Page 43 of 238

Wow, didn't expect that one. 



I guess its worth asking again UHMW is still a legal material for this correct? Because on a 

wear level UHMW is stronger than PTFE and UHMW is a plastic as well along with Teflon and 

PTFE according to my understanding of their properties. Can you elaborate more as to why 

Teflon and PTFE are not permitted but UHMW is (If it still is of course)? 

- Andrew 



Wow, didn't expect that one. 

I guess its worth asking again UHMW is still a legal material for this correct? Because on a 

wear level UHMW is stronger than PTFE and UHMW is a plastic as well along with Teflon and 

PTFE according to my understanding of their properties. Can you elaborate more as to why 

Teflon and PTFE are not permitted but UHMW is (If it still is of course)? 

UHMW is legal. 

Teflon (PTFE) is near the bottom of the triboelectric series, thus is very susceptible to 

becoming electrically charged via friction. Thus the use of Teflon is not permitted for safety 

issues. 



Ahh Ok I understand now, Thank you! I will account for this in designing! 

- Andrew 



Ahh Ok I understand now, Thank you! I will account for this in designing! 




Alright Karthik sorry to keep asking questions, I'm doing lots of research on plastics lately and 

which would be best for our application. 

I have a few more I have found: 

Chemraz, Kalrez, and Aegis. 

Would any of these be legal? 

Page 44 of 238

- Andrew 


Posted by JVN at 05/31/2012 08:05:30 pm 



Alright Karthik sorry to keep asking questions, I'm doing lots of research on plastics lately and 

which would be best for our application. 

I have a few more I have found: 

Chemraz, Kalrez, and Aegis. 

Would any of these be legal? 

- Andrew 

No. "Rubbery" plastics are not allowed. That is not within the intent of this rule. 



Alright, I shall continue my search! 

Thanks 



Alright, I shall continue my search! 

Thanks 



Answered: Questions about movement of the High Goal 

Answered: Questions about movement of the High Goal 

Posted by edjubuh at 06/04/2012 03:02:39 pm 

1) Can you rotate the the high goal so that the Blue side of the goal is on the red 

2) Can you push the high goal up so it is no longer at 30"? 

Re: Questions about movement of the High Goal 


1) Can you rotate the the high goal so that the Blue side of the goal is on the red 

2) Can you push the high goal up so it is no longer at 30"? 

Both of these actions are illegal and would be considered to be damaging the field. 

If at any time the Robot operation or team actions are deemed unsafe or have damaged 

the Field Elements or Scoring Objects, by the determination of the referees, the offending 

Page 45 of 238



team may be Disqualified. The Robot will require re-inspection before it may again take the 

field. 

Furthermore you would also be at severe risk of violating which deals with grasping, 

grappling and attaching to the field. 



Re: Answered: Questions about movement of the High Goal 


The current construction causes the raising and rotation of the high goal, is there a suggestion 

to adjust the field so that this does not happen, even accidentally 



The current construction causes the raising and rotation of the high goal, is there a suggestion 

to adjust the field so that this does not happen, even accidentally 

If the field is assembled correctly as per the instructions in Appendix A, the High Goal will be 

screwed in place to prevent rotation or raising. Please see pages 25 & 26 of the PDF 

document for precise details. I've quoted the pertinent instructions below and bolded some text 

for emphasis. 

Step 1) Insert the the PVC Pipe into the square hole of the High Goal Bracket as shown in the 

above images. It is important that the end of the PVC Pipe is flush with the top of the High 

Goal Bracket. Use (4x) #10 x 1/2" sheet metal screws to attach the High Goal Bracket to the 

PVC Pipe as shown in Images A & B. 

Step 4) Insert the High Goal into the hole on the top of the center Stanchion as shown in 

Image G. The orientation of the High Goal is critical, the red "tip" of the High goal should 

"point" toward the Red Driver's Post, as shown in Image H. Use (4x) #10 x 1/2" sheetmetal 

screws, as shown in image G, to lock the High Goal into place once its orientation is correct. 



Seems we didn't assemble the field correctly :p Thanks! 



Seems we didn't assemble the field correctly :p Thanks 



Answered: Sacks in Floor Goal 

Answered: Sacks in Floor Goal 

Posted by Team918D at 06/04/2012 10:56:56 pm 

I know that in order for a sack to be counted as scored it must only be touching the alliance 

Page 46 of 238



tile, and if the sack is on top of another sack, it is not counted unless it is touching the alliance 

tile (got this from other thread). Does the sack have to be fully touching the floor goal or can it 

be on top of a sack but still touching the floor like it is partially on another sack and the side is 

hanging over. 

Re: Sacks in Floor Goal 


I know that in order for a sack to be counted as scored it must only be touching the alliance 

tile, and if the sack is on top of another sack, it is not counted unless it is touching the alliance 

tile (got this from other thread). Does the sack have to be fully touching the floor goal or can it 

be on top of a sack but still touching the floor like it is partially on another sack and the side is 

hanging over. 

Please make sure to review the Q&A Usage Guidelines before posting. Specifically items 

#1&3 in regards to searching the manual, and quoting the applicable rule/definition. 

Let's take a look at he applicable definition here, specifically Scored, Clause 2. 



As long as the Scoring Object is touching a Floor Goal and not touching any other foam tiles, it 

will count as being scored; there are no restrictions against touching other Scoring Objects in 

the rules, thus it is irrelevant when determining if the object is scored. 


Answered: Tags on sacks 

Answered: Tags on sacks 

Posted by PaulR at 06/07/2012 04:01:45 pm 

Will the tags on the sacks be removed for competition? Or will they remain on just like the 

ones that the teams get? 

Re: Tags on sacks 


Will the tags on the sacks be removed for competition? Or will they remain on just like the 

ones that the teams get? 

The tags will me removed as mentioned on page 11 of Appendix A to the VEX Sack Attack 

Game Manual. 

Scoring Sacks & Bonus Sacks come with a white information tag attached to one seam. These 

tags should be removed before use. 


Answered: Hand made touch sensors 

Page 47 of 238

Answered: Hand made touch sensors 

Posted by Foster at 06/08/2012 02:16:27 pm 



I found this great Instructable on making Bend Sensors from misc stuff. Does it fail the VEX 

rule for Sack Attack for using the packaging (anti-static bags) or for no custom electronics? Or 

does it get a pass because it's too simple and everyone can build one? 

Re: Hand made touch sensors 


I found this great Instructable on making Bend Sensors from misc stuff. Does it fail the VEX 

rule for Snack Attack for using the packaging (anti-static bags) or for no custom electronics? 

Or does it get a pass because it's too simple and everyone can build one? 

Prior to posting, please make sure to read the Q&A Usage Guidelines specifically in regards to 

reading and searching the manual and quoting applicable rules from the VEX Sack Attack 

Game Manual. 

Making custom sensors of this sort violates multiple VEX Sack Attack rules. These include: 



b. Only the VEX Robotics Design System Components specifically designed to be used for 

Robot construction are allowed. Using additional components outside their typical purpose is 

against the intent of the rule (i.e. please don’t try using VEX apparel, competition support 

materials, packaging or other non-robot products on a VEX Robotics Competition Robot). 

Parts may NOT be modified as follows: 

a. Motors, extension cords, sensors, controllers, battery packs, and any other electrical 

component of the VEX Robotics Design System may NOT be altered from their original state 

in ANY way. 

Thus, the use of any sort of device similar to what was linked in your post is absolutely illegal. 


Answered: Renamed - Parked Robots in Autonomous 

Answered: Renamed - Parked Robots in Autonomous 

Posted by Kaleb Lange at 06/09/2012 06:19:23 pm 

Please correct me if i am wrong but you should get 10 pionts for returning to your base and 10 

pionts for having the most points at the end. Just wondering becouse in at a scrimage and are 

not getting points when in the rules it says i should. 

Re: Q about the Programing period 


Please correct me if i am wrong but you should get 10 pionts for returning to your base and 10 

pionts for having the most points at the end. Just wondering becouse in at a scrimage and are 

not getting points when in the rules it says i should. 

Page 48 of 238



Prior to posting, please make sure you consult the Q&A Usage Guidelines. Specifically, please 

pay attention to the parts about reading the manual in detail before posting, quoting the 

applicable rule and using specific and appropriate thread titles. 

For information on how the Match is Scored during the Autonomous Period please see the 

Scoring section of the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual, which I've quoted below with some text 

bolded for emphasis. 

The Alliance with the most Robots Parked at the end of the match receives ten (10) points. 

At the end of the Autonomous Period the Alliance with the most points, excluding points for 

Parked 

Robots, receives a ten (10) point bonus. 

Thus Parking points are only awarded at the end of the Match, do not count towards the 

determination of the Autonomous Bonus. 



Answered: Clarification on <SG9> 

Posted by DracoTheDragon at 06/10/2012 07:38:45 am 

If an easily removed robot surrounds the plate between the high goals on 4 sides in an attempt 

to de-score an opposing alliance's stack of sacks on the opposite side of the field, would this 

violate . 


of this 

rule will result in a Disqualification. 

If the robot maintains this state at the end of the match, Referees/Drivers will be able to 

remove the robot without changing the state of any mechanisms. 

Re: Clarification on <SG9> 


If an easily removed robot surrounds the plate between the high goals on 4 sides in an attempt 

to de-score an opposing alliance's stack of sacks on the opposite side of the field, would this 

violate . 

If the robot maintains this state at the end of the match, Referees/Drivers will be able to 

remove the robot without changing the state of any mechanisms. 

Please take a look at the new version of which was updated today: 

http://www.vexforum.com/showpost.php?p=308254&postcount=5 

Robots may not intentionally grasp, grapple or attach to any Field Elements. Strategies 

Page 49 of 238



with mechanisms that react against multiple sides of a field element in an effort to latch onto 

said field element are prohibited. (See figures 8-10) The intent of this rule is to prevent teams 

from both unintentionally damaging the field, and from anchoring themselves to the field. 

Violations of this rule will result in a Disqualification. 

From what you've described, it seems that your robot would be surrounding a field element in 

a way that would constitute grasping and would violate . Thus it would be illegal. 

However, without seeing your exact implementation it's impossible to issue a blanket ruling. 

Re: Answered: Clarification on <SG9> 


I do not have an image sharing website to post any photos :( unfortunately i would think there 

is a possibility of field damage if another robot interacts with us in this position. Thus, violating 

"unintentionally damaging the field" portion of . 

Thank you for the help:) 



I do not have an image sharing website to post any photos :( unfortunately i would think there 

is a possibility of field damage if another robot interacts with us in this position. Thus, violating 

"unintentionally damaging the field" portion of . 

Thank you for the help:) 

You're welcome. :) 


Answered: Coaches in Elimination Matches 

Answered: Coaches in Elimination Matches 


I'm not sure which rule this would fall under, so here are all of the related rules: 

Coach – A student or adult mentor designated as the team advisor during the match. 

Only one (1) of these is allowed per team on the field at any given time. 

Each team shall include up to two Drivers and one Coach. 

The only people from a team permitted by the playing field are the three drive team 

members who are identified by the drive team badges. These badges are interchangeable but 

not during a match. 

During matches, two teams from an alliance will play on the field. Any team which sits 

out the first match in an elimination series, must play in the second match, with no exceptions. 

In the third and any subsequent matches, any two of the three teams may play. Prior to each 

Elimination Match, the Alliance Captain must let the referee know which two teams will be 

Page 50 of 238

playing in the upcoming match. 



If Team X, Team Y, and Team Z are in an alliance, and teams X and Z play in an elimination 

match, could a member of Team Y be the Coach for Team Z during the match? 

In addition, if teams X and Z were playing in an elimination match, and Team X has 2 drivers 

and 1 coach, and Team Z only has two drivers, could a 4th member of Team X act as the 

coach for Team Z even though there are already 3 people from Team X at the field? 

Re: Coaches in Elimination Matches 


If Team X, Team Y, and Team Z are in an alliance, and teams X and Z play in an elimination 

match, could a member of Team Y be the Coach for Team Z during the match? 

There are no rules preventing this action, thus it is legal. 

In addition, if teams X and Z were playing in an elimination match, and Team X has 2 drivers 

and 1 coach, and Team Z only has two drivers, could a 4th member of Team X act as the 

coach for Team Z even though there are already 3 people from Team X at the field? 

Similar to your above question, there are no rules preventing this action, thus it is legal. 



There are no rules preventing this action, thus it is legal. 

Similar to your above question, there are no rules preventing this action, thus it is legal. 

Thanks! I just wanted to make sure (Better safe than sorry!). 



Thanks! I just wanted to make sure (Better safe than sorry!). 



Answered: Sacks scored in multiple goals in Programming Skills 

Answered: Sacks scored in multiple goals in Programming Skills 

Posted by Epsilon at 06/12/2012 03:22:01 pm 

From the Sack Attack Manual: 

If a Scoring Object meets the criteria of being in both a red and blue High Goal OR both a red 

and blue Trough, it will be Scored in both. 

From the Programming Skills Challenge rules: 

Page 51 of 238



In a Programming Skills Match, all Goals are considered to be the same color for purposes of 

any rules or definitions. 

What happens if a sack is scored in both a red and blue trough or in both a red and blue high 

goal during a Programming Skills match? Does it count as scored twice? 

Re: Sacks scored in multiple goals in Programming Skills 


From the Sack Attack Manual: 

If a Scoring Object meets the criteria of being in both a red and blue High Goal OR both a red 

and blue Trough, it will be Scored in both. 

From the Programming Skills Challenge rules: 

In a Programming Skills Match, all Goals are considered to be the same color for purposes of 

any rules or definitions. 

What happens if a sack is scored in both a red and blue trough or in both a red and blue high 

goal during a Programming Skills match? Does it count as scored twice? 

In the future, please be sure to search the Q&A carefully before posting questions in this 



The same question was answered on May 28th: 


The Object will count as Scored twice. Please see the previous response for full details. 


Answered: Sack Attack Skills Challenge Worlds Qualifications 

Answered: Sack Attack Skills Challenge Worlds Qualifications 

Posted by Dpbailey at 06/15/2012 09:45:07 pm 

I looked through the skill challenge wiki pages and I may have missed it but I didn't see 

anything about qualifying for worlds through the skills challenges. I am assuming it will be the 

same, if not very similar, to how the Gateway skills qualifications were. 

Can someone please clarify things? Or point me in the right direction to find where the rule(s) 

are written? 

Thank you 

Re: Sack Attack Skills Challenge Worlds Qualifications 


I looked through the skill challenge wiki pages and I may have missed it but I didn't see 

anything about qualifying for worlds through the skills challenges. I am assuming it will be the 

same, if not very similar, to how the Gateway skills qualifications were. 

Can someone please clarify things? Or point me in the right direction to find where the rule(s) 

are written? 

Page 52 of 238

Thank you 



The full World Championship qualification criteria for 2013 can be found here: 

http://content.vexrobotics.com/epdocs/2013_VRWC_QualifyingCriteria.pdf 


Answered: "gently" removing robots 

Answered: "gently" removing robots 

Posted by team20tbworld at 06/18/2012 07:41:10 pm 

i have a question about this paragraph in the game definitions 

"For a Scoring Object to count under either clause, it must remain in a Scored position, if/when 



necessary) i.e. The Scoring Object must not be supported by the Robot." 

If I'm correct in assuming that this year we will still be running generally 4 minute matches, 

then the field reset crew will be in quite a hurry. 

question 1: will the referees be the only ones able to touch the robots to remove them? 

because in the past the field reset crew has always handed me my robot. 

question 2: if we feel that our robot has not been removed "gently" enough can we complain? 

(only if of course we lost points from the removal) 

please attempt to clarify for me as i see the field resetting getting quite chaotic with 98 sacks 

on the field and 4 minute matches. 

Thanks in advance 

Re: "gently" removing robots 


i have a question about this paragraph in the game definitions 

"For a Scoring Object to count under either clause, it must remain in a Scored position, if/when 



necessary) i.e. The Scoring Object must not be supported by the Robot." 

If I'm correct in assuming that this year we will still be running generally 4 minute matches, 

then the field reset crew will be in quite a hurry. 

question 1: will the referees be the only ones able to touch the robots to remove them? 

because in the past the field reset crew has always handed me my robot. 

The referees will be the only one touching the Robots if there is a question of whether or not 

Page 53 of 238



an Object is Scored at the end of the Match. Once the referees finish their scoring, they'll give 

the all clear signal and team can remove their robots from the field. 

question 2: if we feel that our robot has not been removed "gently" enough can we complain? 

(only if of course we lost points from the removal) 

please attempt to clarify for me as i see the field resetting getting quite chaotic with 98 sacks 

on the field and 4 minute matches. 

If you feel that the scoring of your Match was done incorrectly, feel free to bring it to the 

attention of the head referee. However, please remember that the head referee will make the 

final call. 

Re: Answered: "gently" removing robots 

Posted by team20tbworld at 08/15/2012 05:22:49 am 

thanks alot! 

Re: Answered: "gently" removing robots 


thanks alot 



Answered: Tape on Starting Tile (SG4) 

Answered: Tape on Starting Tile (SG4) 

Posted by JimCrane at 06/20/2012 07:21:39 pm 

In SG4, tiles are mentioned as being allowed to be touched (starting tile) and not allowed to be 

touched (gray tiles). What about the white tape that covers the tabs of the tiles? In other 

words, is a robot that is touching the tape that covers the tabs of the starting tile in a legal 

starting position? 


while the 

Robot is in contact with their own Alliance Starting Tile (i.e. the tile the Robot started the match 

on), 

within the following restrictions. 

i. Drivers and Coaches may only interact with a Robot if it is touching their own Alliance 

Starting 

Tile and no part of the Robot is touching a gray foam tile, except the interaction allowed in 

 


to 

bring the Robot fully into the legal Alliance Starting Tile, into a legal position as per 

Re: Tape on Starting Tile (SG4) 

Posted by JimCrane at 06/20/2012 07:47:55 pm 

Page 54 of 238



The answer to the original post might also help clarify the tape when scoring under the 2nd 

criteria. How does one score a sack that touches the tape? 

Quote: 




In SG4, tiles are mentioned as being allowed to be touched (starting tile) and not allowed to be 

touched (gray tiles). What about the white tape that covers the tabs of the tiles? In other 

words, is a robot that is touching the tape that covers the tabs of the starting tile in a legal 

starting position? 

Yes, this would be a legal starting position. If a robot is touching tape that is directly above the 

Alliance Starting Tile, it is considered to be touching the Alliance Starting Tile. 



The answer to the original post might also help clarify the tape when scoring under the 2nd 

criteria. How does one score a sack that touches the tape? 

Quote: 


The same logic from above applies here. If a Scoring Object is touching tape that is directly 

above the Alliance Starting Tile, it is considered to be touching the Alliance Starting Tile, 

hence touching the Floor Goal. 


Answered: clarification on SG9 regarding team's intentions 

Answered: clarification on SG9 regarding team's intentions 

Posted by 1412E at 06/23/2012 03:02:11 am 

"...strategies with mechanisms that react against multiple sides of a field element in an effort to 

latch onto said field element are prohibited" - SG9 

Many teams last season had U-Shaped frames designed to fit around goals to better align 

themselves with the goal for more precision scoring. Green Eggs' Elevation bot had a square 

indentation/alignment mechanism for this same purpose. The 30" goal is in perfect alignment 

with the center pillar supporting the troughs, would it be illegal to use a U-mechanism such as 

the second example in SG9 designed to fit around the pillar for precision scoring on the high 

tower used only for aligning the robot better? 

Thanks in advance:) 

Re: clarification on SG9 regarding team's intentions 


"...strategies with mechanisms that react against multiple sides of a field element in an effort to 

Page 55 of 238

latch onto said field element are prohibited" - SG9 



Many teams last season had U-Shaped frames designed to fit around goals to better align 

themselves with the goal for more precision scoring. Green Eggs' Elevation bot had a square 

indentation/alignment mechanism for this same purpose. The 30" goal is in perfect alignment 

with the center pillar supporting the troughs, would it be illegal to use a U-mechanism such as 

the second example in SG9 designed to fit around the pillar for precision scoring on the high 

tower used only for aligning the robot better? 

Thanks in advance:) 

If your alignment device is reacting against multiple sides of a field element resulting in your 

robot being "locked" into place or having grasped/grappled the field element, it would be 

illegal. Take a look at the figures accompanying for some examples. 

Just because a device is only intended to be used for aligning the robot, does not mean that it 

may not have the unintended consequence of locking or anchoring a robot to the field. 

Re: Answered: clarification on SG9 regarding team's intentions 


Ok, thanks again:) 

Re: Answered: clarification on SG9 regarding team's intentions 


Ok, thanks again:) 

You're welcome. :) 


Answered: Replacing VEXnet USB Adapter Key On Joystick Mid-match 

Answered: Replacing VEXnet USB Adapter Key On Joystick Mid-match 

Posted by capow08 at 06/24/2012 09:13:36 pm 

If the VEXnet USB Adapter Key on the joystick fails mid-match, can it be replaced with another 

provided we have a replacement key with us at the field? 

The only rule I found regarding Joysticks was 

No more than two VEX hand-held transmitters may control a single robot during the 

tournament. No 

modification of these transmitters is allowed of ANY kind. 

a. No other methods of controlling the robot (light, sound, etc) are permissible. 

However, I don't believe "no modification of these transmitters" is referring to changing keys in 

the middle of the match, correct? 

Re: Replacing VEXnet USB Adapter Key On Joystick Mid-match 


If the VEXnet USB Adapter Key on the joystick fails mid-match, can it be replaced with another 

Page 56 of 238

provided we have a replacement key with us at the field? 

The only rule I found regarding Joysticks was 



However, I don't believe "no modification of these transmitters" is referring to changing keys in 

the middle of the match, correct? 

No, this is not allowed. Teams are never allowed to introduce any thing to the field that is not a 

Driver Control Load during the match. 

Re: Answered: Replacing VEXnet USB Adapter Key On Joystick Mid-match 


Just to be clear, I was referring to replacing the VEXnet key on the joystick, not on the cortex. 

Does your previously posted ruling only apply to replacing the cortex's key, or both the cortex's 

key and joystick's key? 

If it is the latter case, is this just a rule I missed? Or is it just "common sense?" 



Just to be clear, I was referring to replacing the VEXnet key on the joystick, not on the cortex. 

Does your previously posted ruling only apply to replacing the cortex's key, or both the cortex's 

key and joystick's key? 

If it is the latter case, is this just a rule I missed? Or is it just "common sense?" 

That was my mistake. There are no rules preventing you from replacing the VEXnet key on the 

VEXnet Joystick. Sorry for the confusion! 



Thank you very much! 



Thank you very much 



Answered: Clarification on part F 

Answered: Clarification on <R7> part F 


According to 


... 

Page 57 of 238



f. Non shattering plastic...as cut from a single 12" x 24" sheet up to 0.063" thick. 

... 

Would this ruling be violated if multiple layers of plastic sheets were stacked and connected 

with screws/zipties, increasing the stability of the material. This newly crafted material would 

then be used for a manipulator on the robot, in hopes of being light and secure. 

If this is allowed, and we have issues during inspection of using only 1 sheet of 12"x24"x0.063" 

thick, may we use a cad model to prove that it does not exceed the material limit? 

If cad is not sufficient, may we then use decoration such as markings or tape to divide the 

plastic, making it easier to identify the individual layers of the plastic? Related rulings will be 

part d ("Teams may add non-functional decorations provided that these do not affect the 

robot performance in any significant way or affect the outcome of the match") 

If we may not stack the material, is it safe to assume that we can divide it with 1x25 bars and 

achieve a similar result? 

Re: Clarification on <R7> part F 


According to 


Would this ruling be violated if multiple layers of plastic sheets were stacked and connected 

with screws/zipties, increasing the stability of the material. This newly crafted material would 

then be used for a manipulator on the robot, in hopes of being light and secure. 

If this is allowed, and we have issues during inspection of using only 1 sheet of 12"x24"x0.063" 

thick, may we use a cad model to prove that it does not exceed the material limit? 

Provided you do not exceed the material limit, you may arrange the plastic in any way you 

wish. What you have described is legal. Having a CAD model available is a great option in 

case the inspectors are unsure if you are within the material limit. 

Re: Answered: Clarification on <R7> part F 

Posted by DracoTheDragon at 07/03/2012 08:16:52 pm 

Thank you :) 

Just curious, but may I ask why plastic has specific demensions if any arrangement is 

allowed? 



Page 58 of 238



Just curious, but may I ask why plastic has specific demensions if any arrangement is 

allowed? 

The intent of this rule is to limit the amount of plastic used by teams, without excessively 

limiting the manner in which it can be used. 



The intent of this rule is to limit the amount of plastic used by teams, without excessively 

limiting the manner in which it can be used. 

Sorry, i phrased my question poorly. I mean that why are teams limited by dimensions as well 

as volume? For example, why cant teams use sheets that are 1/2" thick but with a shorter 

length to achieve the same volume? 

It would be easier to get a cleaner result with a sheet closest to it's final dimensions. 



Sorry, i phrased my question poorly. I mean that why are teams limited by dimensions as well 

as volume? For example, why cant teams use sheets that are 1/2" thick but with a shorter 

length to achieve the same volume? 

It would be easier to get a cleaner result with a sheet closest to it's final dimensions. 

By limiting the thickness, we've limited the applications that plastic can be easily used for. 

Thicker plastics can require special tools for cutting and manipulating. Our priority is to keep 

the VRC as accessible as possible for all teams, thus always trying to reduce the reliance on 

parts outside of the VEX Robotics Design System. 



Ah, ok that makes sense. Thank you for your time :) 



Ah, ok that makes sense. Thank you for your time :) 



Answered: Question about Robot Inspection 

Answered: Question about Robot Inspection 


Every robot will be required to pass a full inspection before being cleared to compete. 

This inspection will ensure that all robot rules and regulations are met. Initial inspections will 

take place during team registration/practice time. 

a.If significant changes are made to a robot, it must be re-inspected before it will be allowed to 

compete. 

Page 59 of 238



b.All robot configurations must be inspected before being used in competition. c.Teams may 

be requested to submit to random spot-inspections by event personnel. Refusal to 

submit will result in disqualification. d.Referees or inspectors may decide that a robot is in 

violation of the rules. In this event, the 

team in violation will be disqualified and the robot will be barred from the playing field until it 

passes re-inspection. 

At the beginning of any match, robots must be smaller than 18” x 18” x 18”. a.During 

inspections, robots will be measured in one of two ways 

i. Robots will be placed into a “sizing box” which has interior dimensions matching the above 

size constraints. To pass inspection, a robot must fit within the box without touching the box 

walls or ceiling. 

ii. Robots will be sized using a VRC Robot Sizing Tool. Robots will be placed on the base plate 

and must not touch the measurement slide as it is passed over the base plate. Please see 

http://www.vexrobotics.com/276-2086.html for a visual reference 

Our robot has a 17.5"x17.5" chassis, and it tends to move around slightly on its wheels when 

we set it on a flat surface. During inspection, this can cause the robot to drift slightly outside 

the sizing tool and appear to violate the 18"x18"x18" size limit. 

Would it be legal to add short standoffs to the bottom of our chassis to take the weight of the 

robot off of its wheels during inspection, and then remove the standoffs immediately after 

inspection? Or would this be considered "making significant changes to the robot"? 

Re: Question about Robot Inspection 


Our robot has a 17.5"x17.5" chassis, and it tends to move around slightly on its wheels when 

we set it on a flat surface. During inspection, this can cause the robot to drift slightly outside 

the sizing tool and appear to violate the 18"x18"x18" size limit. 

Would it be legal to add short standoffs to the bottom of our chassis to take the weight of the 

robot off of its wheels during inspection, and then remove the standoffs immediately after 

inspection? Or would this be considered "making significant changes to the robot"? 

Your robot must pass inspection in the configuration it is going to be in when on the field. 

Adding (or removing) parts solely for the purpose of passing inspection would not be legal. 



Your robot must pass inspection in the configuration it is going to be in when on the field. 

Adding (or removing) parts solely for the purpose of passing inspection would not be legal. 

Okay, thanks! 



Okay, thanks 

Page 60 of 238



Answered: Excellence Competition award 

Answered: Excellence Competition award 

Posted by rpayne12 at 07/08/2012 02:21:41 pm 



What are the rules for a team to recieve the excellence award at a sack attack competition? 

Re: Excellence Competition award 


What are the rules for a team to recieve the excellence award at a sack attack competition? 

This year's Awards Appendix is still being finalized and will be available shortly. When ready 

you can find the document here: 

http://www.vexforum.com/wiki/index.php/Sack_Attack 


Answered: b. Rope Clarification 

Answered: <R15> b. Rope Clarification 

Posted by GSmith at 07/25/2012 06:10:31 pm 

In b. the game manual states "Teams are permitted to fuse/melt the end of the 1/8” 

nylon rope to prevent fraying" but I could not find "Rope" as a legal part for the VEX robot. 

Can 1/8" rope be used on the robot and if so what is the length limit? 

Thanks 

Re: <R15> b. Rope Clarification 


In b. the game manual states "Teams are permitted to fuse/melt the end of the 1/8” 

nylon rope to prevent fraying" but I could not find "Rope" as a legal part for the VEX robot. 

Can 1/8" rope be used on the robot and if so what is the length limit? 

The legal 1/8" rope is the rope that is included as part of the VEX Winch and Pulley kit: 

http://www.vexrobotics.com/products/accessories/motion/276-1546.html 

This rope comes in 4' (1.22 m) lengths. 


Answered: Clarification on Scored (Floor Goals) 

Answered: Clarification on Scored (Floor Goals) 

Posted by nallen01 at 07/26/2012 11:32:37 pm 

Hi Karthik, 


Page 61 of 238



... 


As per the definition of scored for Floor Goals, there is no mention about an object being not 

scored if a robot is touching it. Is this just an oversight or are sacks scored in floor goals still 

legally scored even if a robot of the same colour is touching them? 

Thanks! 

Re: Clarification on Scored (Floor Goals) 


Hi Karthik, 

As per the definition of scored for Floor Goals, there is no mention about an object being not 

scored if a robot is touching it. Is this just an oversight or are sacks scored in floor goals still 

legally scored even if a robot of the same colour is touching them? 

Thanks 

Take a look at the second part of the rule. I've quoted it below for your convenience, bolding 





necessary) i.e. The Scoring Object must not be supported by the Robot.Simple touching of a 

Scoring Object by a robot in a Floor Goal does not affect how it is Scored. However, if the 

Robot is "supporting" the Scoring Object, it would not count. 


Posted by nallen01 at 08/10/2012 11:33:27 pm 

Simple touching of a Scoring Object by a robot in a Floor Goal does not affect how it is Scored. 

However, if the Robot is "supporting" the Scoring Object, it would not count. 




Thanks Karthik 



Answered: broken motor pin on 269 

Answered: broken motor pin on 269 

Posted by Team5119 at 07/28/2012 02:58:32 pm 

Page 62 of 238



Hi, the other day during construction there was an acident with one of the 269 motor power 

connections, both connections have broken and are now bare cable, we were just wondering if 

it is legal to solder these connections to a motor controller 29 or does the motor need replacing 

:confused: 

Thanks 

Liam Grazier 

Team Leader Of Team 5119 

Re: broken motor pin on 269 


Hi, the other day during construction there was an acident with one of the 269 motor power 

connections, both connections have broken and are now bare cable, we were just wondering if 

it is legal to solder these connections to a motor controller 29 or does the motor need replacing 

:confused: 

Thanks 

Liam Grazier 

Team Leader Of Team 5119 

Let's take a look at what the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual has to say about modifying 

motors as well as soldering. 




in ANY way. 

b. Welding, soldering, brazing, gluing, or attaching in any way that is not provided within the 

VEX Robotics Design System will NOT be allowed. 

Thus, the repairs you described would not be allowed to be used on any part you wish to use 

during competition. However, feel free to repair the motor and use it for practice or prototyping. 

Re: Answered: broken motor pin on 269 


Ok, thanks for the feedback 

Re: Answered: broken motor pin on 269 


Ok, thanks for the feedback 


Page 63 of 238


Answered: Qualification question 

Answered: Qualification question 

Posted by freetrader0000 at 07/30/2012 07:28:13 pm 



The people that manage the regional competitions (PRIOR) in Puerto Rico say that we must 

first qualify in a regional event to then attend their Latin American competition, and only then 

can we go to the VRC World Championship. However, I never saw this being legal in the rules. 

This is a disadvantage to the teams that were able to win regional events and teams with low 

budgets. This also brings to question the skills challenges, if one gets to the top 30 worldwide, 

what’s the use in having to go again to the Latin American competition? Last year, only 

the points for the Latin American skills challenges were displayed. The question is, is this 

competition legit? 

Here is what I read in regards to the qualifying rules: 


Re: Qualification question 


The people that manage the regional competitions (PRIOR) in Puerto Rico say that we must 

first qualify in a regional event to then attend their Latin American competition, and only then 

can we go to the VRC World Championship. However, I never saw this being legal in the rules. 

This is a disadvantage to the teams that were able to win regional events and teams with low 

budgets. This also brings to question the skills challenges, if one gets to the top 30 worldwide, 

what’s the use in having to go again to the Latin American competition? Last year, only the 

points for the Latin American skills challenges were displayed. The question is, is this 

competition legit? 

Here is what I read in regards to the qualifying rules: 


You will have to speak to the local organizing group to determine the status of this event. If this 

fails, please content the RECF representative for your area. This helpful map will allow you to 

determine who to contact. 


Answered: Anti Slip Mats Legal ? 

Answered: Anti Slip Mats Legal ? 


Hi guys, quick question ... is the anti-slip mats legal in VRC ... link below to product 

http://www.active-robots.com/shop-by-brand/vex-robotics/vex-robotics-structure/anti-slip-mats. 

html 

Re: Anti Slip Mats Legal ? 


Hi guys, quick question ... is the anti-slip mats legal in VRC ... link below to product 

Page 64 of 238



http://www.active-robots.com/shop-by-brand/vex-robotics/vex-robotics-structure/anti-slip-mats. 

html 

Please be sure to read the Q&A Usage Guidelines before posting. Specifically items 1 & 3, 

regarding reading the manual and quoting applicable rules. 

The following rules apply in this situation. 



Official VEX products are ONLY available from VEX & Official VEX Resellers. To 

determine whether a product is “official” or not, consult www.VEXrobotics.com. 

Looking at the website, as suggested by , we find the following: 

http://www.vexrobotics.com/products/accessories/structure/mat-g.html 

Thus, Anti-Slip Mat is legal. Further more, take a look at 





Thus, you would be able to use VEX Anti-Slip Mat, or any other Anti-Slip Mat which is identical 

to the VEX version in all ways except for colour. Specifically, the Anti-Slip Mat which you linked 

to is an official VEX product being sold by an official VEX Reseller. It is definitely legal. 


Answered: Clarification of SG9 

Answered: Clarification of SG9 

Posted by snowpenguin at 08/08/2012 12:30:22 am 


with 

mechanisms that react against multiple sides of a field element in an effort to latch onto said 

field 

element are prohibited. (See figures 8-10) The intent of this rule is to prevent teams from both 

unintentionally damaging the field, and from anchoring themselves to the field. Violations of 

this rule will 

result in a Disqualification. 

We wanted to check just to be sure on a mechanism of ours regarding SG9. The rule states 

that the robot can't latch itself on, and the third picture in the group of examples shows 

basically the field element with an upside down v shape on top of it. We made similar diagrams 

Page 65 of 238



of our question in the attached image and wanted to check to see if they are legal. The picture 

attached includes two diagrams of two separate questions of legality. 

The intent of these is not to "latch" onto the field, but to hold our mechanism over top of it, with 

a piece down the side as well. I seem to remember the refs stating last year that 2W's 

mechanism to hold onto the center 30" goal was allowed because they were not "latched" on 

because they could remove it at any time. Similarly, our mechanism would also not be 

attached to the field in any way as the whole system would be on an arm and could be 

removed at any point. It seems like this may be a simple question seeing as it is just what the 

manual said is legal rotated 45 degrees, but we want to be sure. 

Thanks! 

Re: Clarification of SG9 


We wanted to check just to be sure on a mechanism of ours regarding SG9. The rule states 

that the robot can't latch itself on, and the third picture in the group of examples shows 

basically the field element with an upside down v shape on top of it. We made similar diagrams 

of our question in the attached image and wanted to check to see if they are legal. The picture 

attached includes two diagrams of two separate questions of legality. 

The intent of these is not to "latch" onto the field, but to hold our mechanism over top of it, with 

a piece down the side as well. I seem to remember the refs stating last year that 2W's 

mechanism to hold onto the center 30" goal was allowed because they were not "latched" on 

because they could remove it at any time. Similarly, our mechanism would also not be 

attached to the field in any way as the whole system would be on an arm and could be 

removed at any point. It seems like this may be a simple question seeing as it is just what the 

manual said is legal rotated 45 degrees, but we want to be sure. 

Thanks 

Based on the provided pictures, the devices would seem to be legal. However, we obviously 

cannot give you a blanket answer based on a very rough sketch. The final determination would 

be made by the inspectors and referees at your events based on the final implementation of 

your design. 


Answered: Clarification, unnecessary risk 

Answered: Clarification, unnecessary risk <R3 C.> 



... 


Our team is planning to add a string based expansion mechanism(which is stored within a 

Page 66 of 238



solid container before it is ejected) for the purpose of parking and moving throughout the field. 

A flexible material must be used for this type of mechanism to achieve these 2 tasks 

simultaneously. 

Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or Entanglement of Robots 

are 

not part of the ethos of the VEX Robotics Competition... 

Entanglement... may occur as a part of normal 

game play. 

with support of , is that enough to justify the use of this type of scoring mechanism and 

that it does not pose an unnecessary risk of entanglement to pass inspection? 

I understand that it is obvious we are not allowed to use this mechanism if a fellow robot is 

nearby, however if the coast is clear, may we? 

in the past, similar mechanisms have been used. Some examples are, 

Clean sweep- used to deploy minibot 

Round up- String based 

FRC 2002- tether based with no robot entanglement seen at 0:35-0:40 

If this type of mechanism is not allowed, can you please provide a requirement/example that 

can define unnecessary risk of entanglement? 

Re: Clarification, unnecessary risk <R3 C.> 


Our team is planning to add a string based expansion mechanism(which is stored within a 

solid container before it is ejected) for the purpose of parking and moving throughout the field. 

A flexible material must be used for this type of mechanism to achieve these 2 tasks 

simultaneously. 

with support of , is that enough to justify the use of this type of scoring mechanism and 

that it does not pose an unnecessary risk of entanglement to pass inspection? 

It is impossible to determine if this device is posing an unnecessary risk of entanglement 

without knowing more about the nature of the device. However, from your initial description, it 

appears to present a definite risk of entanglement. 

I understand that it is obvious we are not allowed to use this mechanism if a fellow robot is 

nearby, however if the coast is clear, may we? 

Page 67 of 238



Devices which pose risks of unnecessary risks of entanglement may not be used at anytime. 

If this type of mechanism is not allowed, can you please provide a requirement/example that 

can define unnecessary risk of entanglement? 

Non rigid devices which extend beyond the frame of a robot, are typically considered to be 

risks of entanglement. These types of situation are evaluated on a case by case basis. 

Specifically, non rigid devices which drag along the tiles, beyond the frame of the robot, will 

definitely be considered unnecessary risks of entanglement. 

Re: Answered: Clarification, unnecessary risk <R3 C.> 


It is impossible to determine if this device is posing an unnecessary risk of entanglement 

without knowing more about the nature of the device. 


definitely be considered unnecessary risks of entanglement. 

are we allowed to do any of the following points? 

-does that mean if the string has enough slack and doesnt drag(or raised), it wont be 

considered unnecessary risks of entanglement and be categorized as obstruction of the field? 

-since every manipulator has some sort of degree of freedom, would it be legal to use a jointed 

cable guard as an expansion? 

Note: im not really sure what's the real name, but i know in frc competitions some teams feed 

wires through this chain looking thing that protects the wiring 

-cable guard has too many joints to be considered rigid, is it safe to assume that metal with a 

reasonable amount of joints would be legal? (and undergo extra scrutiny from for the 

"defensive" measures) 

Sorry if i'm being annoying and exploiting rulings, but this is a really cool idea that i want to try 

doing:o 



are we allowed to do any of the following points? 

-does that mean if the string has enough slack and doesnt drag(or raised), it wont be 

considered unnecessary risks of entanglement and be categorized as obstruction of the field? 

No, this would still be clear unnecessary risk of entanglement. 

-since every manipulator has some sort of degree of freedom, would it be legal to use a jointed 

Page 68 of 238



cable guard as an expansion? 

Note: im not really sure what's the real name, but i know in frc competitions some teams feed 

wires through this chain looking thing that protects the wiring 

It would depend on the specific implementation of the rigid and jointed guard made from VEX 

legal parts. 



Alright, Thank you for your time:) 



Alright, Thank you for your time:) 



Answered: Rubber Grommets 

Answered: Rubber Grommets 

Posted by MarkGlover at 08/09/2012 11:11:43 pm 

is the use of Rubber grommets like these legal? 

http://www.wiringproducts.com/contents/media/rubber_grommets_big.jpg 

I was thinking of drilling some holes in some metal and then putting the grommets in so I could 

feed wires through the holes and not risk the wires being cut by the metal 

Re: Rubber Grommets 


is the use of Rubber grommets like these legal? 

I was thinking of drilling some holes in some metal and then putting the grommets in so I could 

feed wires through the holes and not risk the wires being cut by the metal 

Please be sure to read the Q&A Usage Guidelines before posting. Specifically items 1 & 3, 

regarding reading the manual and quoting applicable rules. 







Since the part you mentioned is not an official VEX part, nor a identical replacement to an 

Page 69 of 238

official VEX part, it is thereby illegal. 


Answered: Clarification of Scored 

Answered: Clarification of Scored 








What is defined as the robot's contents? If a robot had a square chassis with an open space in 

the middle, and there were sacks on the floor goal within this open space, would they be 

considered contents of the robot? They would technically be within the robot, but the robot 

would not be holding or supporting them in any fashion. 

Re: Clarification of Scored 


What is defined as the robot's contents? If a robot had a square chassis with an open space in 

the middle, and there were sacks on the floor goal within this open space, would they be 

considered contents of the robot? They would technically be within the robot, but the robot 

would not be holding or supporting them in any fashion. 

The contents would be considered to be anything that moves with the robot when it is gently 

pulled away. i.e. The objects which are supported by the robot. 

Re: Answered: Clarification of Scored 


Okay, thank you! 

Re: Answered: Clarification of Scored 


Okay, thank you 



Answered: VEXnet extension cable use 

Answered: VEXnet extension cable use 

Posted by eugenefan1-100 at 08/14/2012 01:22:43 am 

is it legal to use a USB extention cable to make it possible to mount a vexnet key in a more 

open place with less metal and obsructions to keep it from disconnecting. Last year i saw a 

team that used an extention cable to mount the vexnet in a better place that was competing. 

Re: VEXnet extension cable use 


is it legal to use a USB extention cable to make it possible to mount a vexnet key in a more 

open place with less metal and obsructions to keep it from disconnecting. Last year i saw a 

Page 70 of 238



team that used an extention cable to mount the vexnet in a better place that was competing. 

Please make sure you read the Q&A usage guidelines prior to posting in this forum. 

Specifically the part about reading and searching the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual 

thoroughly before posting. 

There is a specific rule, which deals with the use of USB extension cables. 


j. A USB extension cable may be used for the sole purpose of remote mounting of a VEXnet 

key. The key must be mounted in the following manner. 

i. The VEXnet key must be mounted such that no metal is touching the key above the VEXnet 

logo. 

ii. No metal may be within 2” of the top of the VEXnet key. 

Thus, you many use a USB extension cable for the sole purpose of remote mount of a VEXnet 

key. 


Answered: Disabled robots and Pinning 

Answered: Disabled robots and Pinning 

Posted by nallen01 at 08/18/2012 03:40:36 am 

Hi Karthik, 

Today we had an interesting thought: 

We understand that if a robot touches an opponent starting tile then the robot gets disabled. 

However, if this robot was in a pinning position when it was disabled (ie. A robot was still on 

the starting tile) what would happen? Would the disabled robot then get disqualified for 

pinning? Or would the opposing robot just have to deal with being stuck against the wall? 

Thanks a lot! :) 

Re: Disabled robots and Pinning 


Today we had an interesting thought: 

We understand that if a robot touches an opponent starting tile then the robot gets disabled. 

However, if this robot was in a pinning position when it was disabled (ie. A robot was still on 

the starting tile) what would happen? Would the disabled robot then get disqualified for 

pinning? Or would the opposing robot just have to deal with being stuck against the wall? 

A disabled robot can still be penalized for pinning, resulting in disqualification. So in this case, 

the offending team would automatically lose the Autonomous Bonus and be disabled as per 

, and then disqualified for pinning as per . 

Page 71 of 238


Answered: Clarification on rule 

Answered: Clarification on rule <SG9> 

Posted by Storybook at 08/18/2012 10:49:40 pm 



I am at a local competition and I noticed that a team was DQed for "grasping" the middle 

trough. The team had a flat actuator, which they used to cap the top of the trough. The refs 

concluded that their crane and wheels, which were about 7-8 inches away from the actual 

goal, counted as a surround. So my question... Does it count as grasping if your actuator is left 

hovering over a trough after the game ends and the rest of your robot is good distance away 

from two other sides? I can provide a drawing later when I get back home if needed. 

Also to clarify, I understand that the final ruling is left the the head judge and I respect their 

decisions. I would like to know if the rule's intention was to punish defending/stuck robots or 

just misunderstood. 

Steven 

Mentor/Student 

Re: Clarification on rule <SG9> 


I am at a local competition and I noticed that a team was DQed for "grasping" the middle 

trough. The team had a flat actuator, which they used to cap the top of the trough. The refs 

concluded that their crane and wheels, which were about 7-8 inches away from the actual 

goal, counted as a surround. So my question... Does it count as grasping if your actuator is left 

hovering over a trough after the game ends and the rest of your robot is good distance away 

from two other sides? I can provide a drawing later when I get back home if needed. 

Before posting, please make sure to review the Q&A Usage Guidelines. Specifically, we ask 

that you always quote the specific rule you're referring to. In this case, the rule is 






From what you have described, there does not appear to have been any grasping, grappling or 

attaching. Thus it does not seem to be a violation of or merit a disqualification. 

However, this interpretation is being made without seeing the actual robot or situation in 

question. 


Answered: Painting Of Parts Question 

Answered: <R7di> Painting Of Parts Question 


Page 72 of 238




a. Any material strictly used as a color filter or a color marker for a VEX Light Sensor. 


which 

are identical in all ways except for color are permissible. Note: It is up to inspectors to 



to 

fit these screws. 



must 

be in the spirit of the competition. Inspectors will have final say in what is considered 


i. Anodizing and painting of parts would be considered a legal nonfunctional decoration 

Would I be able to spray paint the chassis of our robot (or any metal) with spray paint bought 

from Lowes, or any hardware store? 

I am pretty sure that is legal, but I am just double checking so I don't ruin the metal. 


Re: <R7di> Painting Of Parts Question 


Would I be able to spray paint the chassis of our robot (or any metal) with spray paint bought 

from Lowes, or any hardware store? 

I am pretty sure that is legal, but I am just double checking so I don't ruin the metal. 

Yes, this would be a legal modification based on the rule you quoted above. Most 

commercially available spray paints are safe for use on VEX metal. 


Posted by Jesse323Z at 08/21/2012 01:40:52 am 

Yes, this would be a legal modification based on the rule you quoted above. Most 

commercially available spray paints are safe for use on VEX metal. 

Thank you Karthik 😄 



Thank you Karthik 😄 



Answered: Renamed: Driver Control Loads on Alliance Starting Tiles 

Page 73 of 238



Answered: Renamed: Driver Control Loads on Alliance Starting Tiles 

Posted by roboraven91 at 08/21/2012 04:28:57 pm 

Hello, I have been reading through the manual and had a question regarding the rule . 

If am placing a driver control load directly onto my teams alliance starting tile, do I still need my 

robot to be touching the tile? Or does that only apply if you are placing the load on your robot... 


Re: Driver control preloads. 


Hello, I have been reading through the manual and had a question regarding the rule . 

If am placing a driver control load directly onto my teams alliance starting tile, do I still need my 

robot to be touching the tile? Or does that only apply if you are placing the load on your robot... 

Thanks in advance 

Before posting in the Q&A, please make sure to review the Q&A Usage Guidelines, specifically 

the points about relevant thread titles and quoting specific rules. I've renamed this thread to 

ease confusion. 

Here's rule , with some text bolded for emphasis. 

Any Scoring Objects introduced during the Match must be either gently placed on a 

Robot of your own color touching an Alliance Starting Tile or gently placed on an Alliance 

Starting Tile of your own color. The intent of this rule is to allow teams to introduce objects into 

play, but not to impart energy on the scoring object which will cause it to end up in a Scored 

position in a Trough or a High Goal. Violations of this rule will result in a warning for minor 

offenses which do not affect the match. Egregious (match affecting) offenses will result in a 

Disqualification. Teams who receive multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at 

the head referee's discretion. 

• A Driver or Coach may introduce Driver Control Loads at any point during the Driver 

Controlled Period.Thus, when placing your Driver Control Load on an Alliance Starting Tile, 

there is no requirement for a Robot to be touching your tile. 

Re: Answered: Renamed: Driver Control Loads on Alliance Starting Tiles 

Posted by roboraven91 at 08/21/2012 07:00:50 pm 

Thank you very much for the quick response 

Re: Answered: Renamed: Driver Control Loads on Alliance Starting Tiles 


Thank you very much for the quick response 

You are very welcome. 


Answered: Parked 

Answered: Parked 

Posted by justgilyim at 08/22/2012 07:00:32 am 

Page 74 of 238



its defined in the manual that parked is defined as: – A robot is considered to be Parked if it is 

touching one of its own Alliance Starting Tiles at the 

end of the Match. 

If a robot were to able to touch both alliance starting tile, will the robot be considered parked 

for both tiles and therefore be considered as 2 robots parked? 

If it does count as 2 robots parked, what if an alliance member also parks on the tile, will the 

robot parked count still be 2? or will it be considered as 3 robots parked? 

Re: Parked 


its defined in the manual that parked is defined as: – A robot is considered to be Parked if it is 

touching one of its own Alliance Starting Tiles at the 


If a robot were to able to touch both alliance starting tile, will the robot be considered parked 

for both tiles and therefore be considered as 2 robots parked? 

If it does count as 2 robots parked, what if an alliance member also parks on the tile, will the 

robot parked count still be 2? or will it be considered as 3 robots parked? 

A single robot can only count as being Parked once. Touching the other Alliance Starting Tile 

of its colour will not merit any extra credit. 


Answered: Clarification on External Wire Repair 

Answered: Clarification on <R15> External Wire Repair 

Posted by mkirouac at 09/01/2012 05:53:10 am 

This is a follow up to a question about "broken motor pin on 269" posted here: 


We were wondering if there exists a competion-legal repair could be made in this situation, 

based on the second subpart of : 




in ANY way. 

. 

. 

• External wires on VEX electrical components may be repaired by soldering, using twist/crimp 

connectors, electrical tape or shrink tubing such that the original functionality / length is not 

modified in any way. Wire used in repairs must be identical to VEX wire. 

Re: Clarification on <R15> External Wire Repair 

Page 75 of 238




This is a follow up to a question about "broken motor pin on 269" posted here: 


We were wondering if there exists a competion-legal repair could be made in this situation, 

based on the second subpart of : 

Parts may NOT be modified as follows:a. Motors, extension cords, sensors, controllers, 

battery packs, and any other electrical component of the VEX Robotics Design System may 

NOT be altered from their original state in ANY way.. 

. 

• External wires on VEX electrical components may be repaired by soldering, using 

twist/crimp connectors, electrical tape or shrink tubing such that the original functionality / 

length is not modified in any way. Wire used in repairs must be identical to VEX wire. 

It would not be legal to repair the actual pin, however you could replace the cable at the end of 

the 269, via the legally described means in , with part of another VEX 3-wire extension 

cable (or identical component). 

Re: Clarification on <R15> External Wire Repair 

Posted by mkirouac at 09/06/2012 03:20:14 am 

Thanks for the clarification! 


Answered: Renamed: Length of the Autonomous Period 

Answered: Renamed: Length of the Autonomous Period 

Posted by eloveless at 09/05/2012 08:17:34 pm 

How much time do we get during the autonomus round and how much time do we get during 

the control round? 

Re: Autonomus time? 


How much time do we get during the autonomus round and how much time do we get during 

the control round? 

Before posting in the Q&A, we ask that you pay careful attention to the Q&A Usage 

Guidelines. In this case, specifically take a look at item #1: "Read and search the manual 

before posting any questions". 

The VEX Sack Attack Manual mentions the details of the timing about of both the Autonomous 

Period and the Driver Controlled Period in the definitions section. Let's take a look; I've bolded 


Autonomous Period – A 15-second time period in which the Robots operate and react only to 

sensor inputs and to commands pre-programmed by the team into the onboard Robot control 

system. Human interaction with the robot is allowed during this period as specified in the game 

Page 76 of 238

ules. 



Driver Controlled Period – The 1:45 (one minute and forty-five second) time period in which 

the Drivers operate the Robots. 

Thus, the Autonomous Period is 15 seconds long, while the Driver Controlled Period is 1:45. 


Answered: Intake Question 

Answered: Intake Question 

Posted by twosided at 09/06/2012 11:09:37 pm 

Hello, my team has the idea of doing an overhead intake, with a conveyor belt. On the belt 

would be construction treads with screws mounted on each tread. Would this be legal, 

according to ? 





I was mostly worried about the sacks getting torn apart. 

Re: Intake Question 


Hello, my team has the idea of doing an overhead intake, with a conveyor belt. On the belt 

would be construction treads with screws mounted on each tread. Would this be legal, 

according to ? 




c. Those that pose an unnecessary risk of entanglement. I was mostly worried about the 

sacks getting torn apart. 

If your intake does tear sacks apart, it would absolutely be deemed illegal. Any time of intake 

which involves screws interacting with sacks will undergo extra scrutiny. For your device to be 

ruled legal, you will need to demonstrate to the referees that it cannot damage the sacks under 

normal match operation. You should be very cautious with this type of design. 

Re: Answered: Intake Question 


So would it be ok if we covered the screws with something? 

Re: Answered: Intake Question 


So would it be ok if we covered the screws with something? 

It would be okay if your intake doesn't damage any Scoring Objects or Field Elements. We 

Page 77 of 238



cannot determine if covering the screws will prevent this from occurring. 


Answered: Split Bot: Entanglement Possibility? 

Answered: Split Bot: Entanglement Possibility? 

Posted by searider1 at 09/13/2012 10:38:14 pm 

Our team is considering having our robot split into two separate robots. The Coretex will be 

located on one of the robots and the second robot will be wired in with long PWM cables. We 

were thinking of wrapping it in the Anti-Slip mat to keep everything together and keep it nice 

and padded. The robots will be driving separately at a distance of approximately 18 inches 

apart. Would this be considered an entanglement risk? Would it be considered just a Wall Bot? 

If yes to any of the above, could you suggest any possible way of re-designing the tether to 

keep all bots safe on the field? Thank you. 

Edit/Delete Message 

Re: Split Bot: Entanglement Possibility? 


Our team is considering having our robot split into two separate robots. The Coretex will be 

located on one of the robots and the second robot will be wired in with long PWM cables. We 

were thinking of wrapping it in the Anti-Slip mat to keep everything together and keep it nice 

and padded. The robots will be driving separately at a distance of approximately 18 inches 

apart. Would this be considered an entanglement risk? Would it be considered just a Wall Bot? 

If yes to any of the above, could you suggest any possible way of re-designing the tether to 

keep all bots safe on the field? Thank you. 

Edit/Delete Message 

Any type of split robot has the potential to be an entanglement risk, if proper precautions are 

not taken. From what you've described, it is not possible for us to judge the risk of 

entanglement. 


Answered: Scoring Definition in Troughs? 

Answered: Scoring Definition in Troughs? 

Posted by searider1 at 09/13/2012 10:52:50 pm 

I tried my best to find the definition of scoring in the troughs and I just couldn't find it. I could 

use some help. Is scoring considered just touching my trough and not my team's robot? What 

if both robots are touching a game piece? Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 

Re: Scoring Definition in Troughs? 


I tried my best to find the definition of scoring in the troughs and I just couldn't find it. I could 

use some help. Is scoring considered just touching my trough and not my team's robot? What 

if both robots are touching a game piece? Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 

Before posting on the Q&A, we ask that you carefully read the manual. The answer to your 

question is taken straight from the definition of Scored. 

Page 78 of 238

















Re: Answered: Scoring Definition in Troughs? 

Posted by searider1 at 09/19/2012 05:58:50 am 

Thank you for your help. 

Re: Answered: Scoring Definition in Troughs? 


Thank you for your help. 



Answered: Field Element Definition 

Answered: Field Element Definition 

Posted by Bleegle at 09/21/2012 06:06:55 am 

Hi, 

Under the definitions section in the manual, it says "Field Element – The foam field tiles, field 

perimeter, Troughs, High Goals and all supporting structures.". Is it correct to assume that the 

foam tiles, perimeter, troughs and high goal are all seperate elements in relation to " 

Robots may not intentionally grasp, grapple or attach to any Field Elements. Strategies with 


field element are prohibited. (See figures 8-10) The intent of this rule is to prevent teams from 

both unintentionally damaging the field, and from anchoring themselves to the field. Violations 

of this rule will result in a Disqualification. ". 

Also, is each individual trough its own element? or are the troughs 4 different elements? 

Thanks! 

Re: Field Element Definition 


Is it correct to assume that the foam tiles, perimeter, troughs and high goal are all seperate 

elements in relation to " Robots may not intentionally grasp, grapple or attach to any 

Field Elements. Strategies with mechanisms that react against multiple sides of a field element 

Page 79 of 238



in an effort to latch onto said field element are prohibited. (See figures 8-10) The intent of this 

rule is to prevent teams from both unintentionally damaging the field, and from anchoring 

themselves to the field. Violations of this rule will result in a Disqualification. ". 

Yes, the foam tiles, perimeter, troughs and high goals are distinct field elements. However, the 

intent of is to prevent all anchoring from the field. If a team, is using two distinct field 

elements to somehow anchor to the field, it would still be a violation of . 

Also, is each individual trough its own element? or are the troughs 4 different elements? 

Thanks 

Each trough is its own element. 


Answered: Question on rule R7f - use of non shattering plastic 

Answered: Question on rule R7f - use of non shattering plastic 

Posted by piniontwister at 09/21/2012 08:31:12 pm 

I see the rules state that we can use plastic ... as cut from a single 12" x 24" sheet up to 0.063" 

thick. 

Is this a very specific rule or can we use 12"x12" of .03 thickness plastic and 12"x12" or .06 

thickness plastic. 

Is the intent to limit the building of the robot to 12"x24" of material or is it that ALL the material 

should be the same. 

Keep up the good work and thanks for listening. 

Re: Question on rule R7f - use of non shattering plastic 


I see the rules state that we can use plastic ... as cut from a single 12" x 24" sheet up to 0.063" 

thick. 

Is this a very specific rule or can we use 12"x12" of .03 thickness plastic and 12"x12" or .06 

thickness plastic. 

Is the intent to limit the building of the robot to 12"x24" of material or is it that ALL the material 

should be the same. 

The intent is to limit the building of the robot to 12"x24" of plastic. Utilizing different thickness is 

permitted, as long as the pieces wall within this limit. 


Answered: Safety Glasses Question 

Answered: Safety Glasses Question 

Page 80 of 238




All team members, including coaches, must wear safety glasses or glasses with side 

shields 

while in the pit or alliance stations during matches. While in the pit area it is highly 

recommended that all 

team members wear safety glasses. 

If during a match our safety glasses get fogged up, would it be ok if we take them off and clean 

them very quickly to get rid of the fog? 


Re: Safety Glasses Question 


If during a match our safety glasses get fogged up, would it be ok if we take them off and clean 

them very quickly to get rid of the fog? 

Yes, this is allowed. 


Answered: Camera 

Answered: Camera 

Posted by bryaneiroa at 09/24/2012 12:38:54 am 

Would it be legal to have a GoPro camera or any other small camera on board the robot? 

Re: Camera 


Would it be legal to have a GoPro camera or any other small camera on board the robot? 

No, this would not be legal. Cameras are not part of the VEX Robotics Design System (Rule 

) and not among the allowed additional "non-VEX" components allowed by Rule . 

These rules can be found in the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual. They are quoted below for 

your convenience. 



a. During inspections if there is a question about whether something is an official VEX 

component, a team will be required to provide documentation to an inspector, which proves 

the component’s source. Such types of documentation include receipts, part numbers, or other 

printed documentation. 



against the intent of the rule (i.e. please don’t try using VEX apparel, competition support 

materials, packaging or other non-robot products on a VEX Robotics Competition Robot). 

c. Products from the VEXpro product line cannot be used for robot construction. Products from 

the VEXpro line which are also cross listed as part of the VEX EDR product are legal. 

Page 81 of 238



d. Official Robotics Components from the VEX Robotics Design System which have been 

discontinued are still legal for competition use. However teams must be cognizant of 












i. Anodizing and painting of parts would be considered a legal nonfunctional decoration 

ii. Any guards or decals must be backed by legal materials that provide the same functionality. 

i.e. If your robot has a giant decal that prevents Sacks from falling out of the robot, the decal 

must be backed by VEX material that also prevents the Sacks from falling out. 

iii. If using the VEX speaker (Part #276-1504), the chosen audio must not be distracting and 

must be in good taste. The Head Inspector and Head Referee will make the final decision on 

the appropriateness of the audio 

e. Any non-aerosol based grease, when used in extreme moderation on surfaces and 

locations that do NOT come into contact with the playing field walls, foam field surface, game 

objects, or other robots. 




i. Plastic can be mechanically altered by cutting, drilling or bending etc., but it cannot be 

chemically treated, melted or cast. Teams may heat the polycarbonate to aid in bending. 

g. A small amount of tape may be used for the following purposes: 

i. For the sole purpose of securing any connection between the ends of two (2) VEX cables. 

ii. For labeling wires and motors. 

iii. Teflon tape solely for the purposes of preventing leaks may be used on the threaded 

portions of pneumatic fittings. 

iv. For securing and retaining a VEXnet key to the Cortex Microcontroller. Using tape in this 

manner is highly recommended to ensure a robust connection. 

h. Hot glue for securing cable connections 


key. The key must be mounted in the following manner. (See the below image for reference) 

i. The VEXnet key must be mounted such that no metal is touching the key above the VEXnet 

logo. 


Re: Answered: Camera 

Posted by bryaneiroa at 09/26/2012 05:57:44 pm 

Even if it does not help the robot perform better in any way...basically it is just to be able to 

record the matches from the inside of the robot it does not benefit the robot or driver in any 

Page 82 of 238

way during competition 





Even if it does not help the robot perform better in any way...basically it is just to be able to 

record the matches from the inside of the robot it does not benefit the robot or driver in any 

way during competition 

Alright, we're going to go with last year's ruling, and allow the use of a "small" camera. 

A small camera that is self powered (i.e. not connected to the VEX Microcontroller), not using 

any wireless capabilities and is not transmitting any data during the match would be 

considered a non functional decoration, thus legal. Teams using a small camera to record 

videos or pictures for use after the match is legal. Teams using a camera for feedback during 

the match is prohibited. 

Please note the use of the word "small". We do not want to see teams taking advantage of 

this rule to use a large camera as ballast for their robot. It will be up to the inspectors to 

determine if they think a camera is inappropriately large. A good guideline to follow; small 

webcams and digital cameras are fine, large SLR cameras not so much. Please use common 

sense when choosing your camera. 



Ok, thank you 



Ok, thank you 



Answered: 30" High Goal Sack Attack 

Answered: 30" High Goal Sack Attack 


Does the high goal pivot at all? Could I move the high goal around? 

Thanks! 

Re: 30" High Goal Sack Attack 


Does the high goal pivot at all? Could I move the high goal around? 

Thanks 

No, the High Goal does not pivot. 


Page 83 of 238

Answered: Parking and Disqualification 

Answered: Parking and Disqualification 

Posted by TKM.368 at 09/25/2012 07:46:05 am 



Can a disqualified robot still contribute towards the parking bonus? 

Disqualification – A penalty applied to a team for a rules violation. When a team is disqualified 

in a Qualifying Match they receive zero (0) WP and SP. When a team is disqualified in an 

Elimination Match the entire alliance is disqualified and they receive a loss for the match. 

Our assumption would be yes as a DQ is a penalty applied once the match is over, but it came 

up and we'd like a confirmation. 

Thanks! 

Re: Parking and Disqualification 


Can a disqualified robot still contribute towards the parking bonus? 

Our assumption would be yes as a DQ is a penalty applied once the match is over, but it came 

up and we'd like a confirmation. 

Thanks 

Your assumption is correct. All disqualifications are post match fouls. Thus, technically a robot 

cannot be disqualified until the match is over, hence is always eligible to earn parking points. 


Answered: Disqualification 

Answered: Disqualification 

Posted by BluethunderLegacy at 09/25/2012 04:17:50 pm 

The maui vex tournament is being hosted this weekend, and I need a clarifiction on 

adisqualification. 

If a team is disqualified during a match, then when should a referee tell the team about being 

DQ'ed . ( when the illegal action happens, or at the end of the match? ) If a team was told 

during the match, then what is this team suppose to do? (Are they suppose to stop driving, or 

can they just keep playing the match so there alliance can win still although they wont get any 

win points or strength points. 

Re: Disqualification 


The maui vex tournament is being hosted this weekend, and I need a clarifiction on 

adisqualification. 

If a team is disqualified during a match, then when should a referee tell the team about being 

Page 84 of 238



DQ'ed . ( when the illegal action happens, or at the end of the match? ) If a team was told 

during the match, then what is this team suppose to do? (Are they suppose to stop driving, or 

can they just keep playing the match so there alliance can win still although they wont get any 

win points or strength points. 

All disqualifications should be handled after the match. Thus the offending team should be 

allowed to complete the match. 


Answered: Protractor markings on a robot 

Answered: Protractor markings on a robot 

Posted by Figures at 10/01/2012 03:31:24 am 

We are having a difficult time getting consistent readings from the pots and I was think that if 

we copied a protractor onto a sheet of lexan and attached it to the robot it would make 

calibration easier. Obviously we could do it and remove it but I was wondering if leaving 

something like that on would be a violation. 

To take this idea one step further, one might be able to have a light sensor read markings on 

lexan or just on the structure,, we haven't tried it so I don't know if it would do any good, but 

would that be a violation? 

Thanks 

Re: Protractor markings on a robot 


We are having a difficult time getting consistent readings from the pots and I was think that if 

we copied a protractor onto a sheet of lexan and attached it to the robot it would make 

calibration easier. Obviously we could do it and remove it but I was wondering if leaving 

something like that on would be a violation. 

To take this idea one step further, one might be able to have a light sensor read markings on 

lexan or just on the structure,, we haven't tried it so I don't know if it would do any good, but 

would that be a violation? 

Thanks 

Provided that the lexan used fit within the legally allowed allowances, this would be legal. 

Re: Answered: Protractor markings on a robot 

Posted by Figures at 10/03/2012 05:14:03 am 

Thanks. This will be interesting. 


Answered: Previously Asked Question: Broken Motor Pin Repairs 

Answered: Previously Asked Question: Broken Motor Pin Repairs 


hi - i asked the question about a broken motor pin a thew months ago and i was told that the 

Page 85 of 238



repair was classed as illegal ... but i was reading the game manual yesterday and i read this ... 

"External wires on VEX electrical components may be repaired by soldering, using twist/crimp 


modified in any way. Wire used in repairs must be identical to VEX wire. Teams may make 

these repairs at their own risk; incorrect wiring may have undesired results" 

Now, because the pin is broken, is there no reason why i cant solder a new 2 pin cable on - as 

long as it didn't extend the length of the wire 

- or if this is illegal, can somebody please tell me off a legal repair, because we now have 2 

broken motors, and i dont wanna spend over £20.00 on new motors if i didn't need to (funding 

is so tight at the mo) 

Re: Previously Asked Question: Broken Motor Pin Repairs 


hi - i asked the question about a broken motor pin a thew months ago and i was told that the 

repair was classed as illegal ... but i was reading the game manual yesterday and i read this ... 

"External wires on VEX electrical components may be repaired by soldering, using twist/crimp 


modified in any way. Wire used in repairs must be identical to VEX wire. Teams may make 

these repairs at their own risk; incorrect wiring may have undesired results" 

Now, because the pin is broken, is there no reason why i cant solder a new 2 pin cable on - as 

long as it didn't extend the length of the wire 

- or if this is illegal, can somebody please tell me off a legal repair, because we now have 2 

broken motors, and i dont wanna spend over £20.00 on new motors if i didn't need to (funding 

is so tight at the mo) 

Take a look at the following Q&A which describes a legal way to repair the motor, similarly to 

what you've described here. 


Re: Answered: Previously Asked Question: Broken Motor Pin Repairs 


Ok ... thank you ... will look at this post ! 

Re: Answered: Previously Asked Question: Broken Motor Pin Repairs 


Ok ... thank you ... will look at this post 



Answered: Robot Skills Question 

Page 86 of 238

Answered: Robot Skills <RSC1> Question 




At the beginning of each Robot Skills Match, the Robot must be placed such that it is 

touching any of 

the colored Alliance Starting Tiles and not touching any Scoring Objects other than those 

permitted by 

Are we allowed to be touching the grey tiles as long as we are touching a colored tile before 

the round starts? 

Re: Robot Skills <RSC1> Question 


Are we allowed to be touching the grey tiles as long as we are touching a colored tile before 

the round starts? 

No, this is not legal. Please see the latest version of the Robot Skills Challenge rules which 

were updated on October 12th. Here's a link to the details of the update. 




No, this is not legal. Please see the latest version of the Robot Skills Challenge rules which 

were updated on October 12th. Here's a link to the details of the update. 


I see now! Thanks Karthik! 



I see now! Thanks Karthik 



Answered: removing robots 

Answered: removing robots 

Posted by ygolol3 at 10/04/2012 10:15:22 pm 

If thare was a red robot covering the blue troff and the blue robot places sacks on top of the 

red robot covering the troff, at the end of the match would the red robot be removed from the 

field with the sacks on top of it? 

And would the sacks on top of the red robot be counted(if thay meet the criteria)? 

Re: removing robots 


Please be sure to read the Q&A Usage Guidelines before posting in this forum. Specifically 

item 1, regarding reading the entire VEX Sack Attack Manual before posting, and item 3 

Page 87 of 238

egarding quoting the specific rule in question. 



If thare was a red robot covering the blue troff and the blue robot places sacks on top of the 

red robot covering the troff, at the end of the match would the red robot be removed from the 

field with the sacks on top of it? 

Let's take a look at the definition of Scored to answer your question. I've bolded some 

pertinent text. 















Yes, the Robot would be gently pulled away, along with any sacks that moved with the robot. 

i.e. the contents of the robot. 

And would the sacks on top of the red robot be counted(if thay meet the criteria)? 

Any Sacks that moved with the robot when it was gently pulled away, would not count as 

Scored. Any Sacks which remained in a Scored position would however count. 

Re: Answered: removing robots 

Posted by ygolol3 at 10/13/2012 09:05:59 am 

Thanks for the reply! 

Re: Answered: removing robots 


Thanks for the reply 



Answered: Illegal Robot 

Answered: Illegal Robot 

Posted by FirePhoenix at 10/07/2012 03:32:59 am 

Page 88 of 238



Is this robot legal in competition or does Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, 

damage, tipping over, or Entanglement of Robots are not part of the ethos of the Vex Robotics 

Competition and are not allowed. and The following types of mechanisms and 

components are NOT allowed: 

c. Those that pose an unnecessary risk of entanglement. cause it to become illegal? 

Match starts at around 0:40 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C15m-qeZlxQ 

It might be in the community's interest if you create an inspection video for Sack Attack on 

what robots should be and should not be allowed in case referees did not read the entire 

manual. 

I think this question is related to the one you answered earlier: 


Re: Illegal Robot 


The robot depicted in the above video, specifically the device which is linking the two sections 

of the robot, appears to be in violation of . The following Q&A goes into more details. 

http://www.vexforum.com/showpost.php?p=312874&postcount=2' 

Here's the pertinent part of that response: 

"Non rigid devices which extend beyond the frame of a robot, are typically considered to be 



definitely be considered unnecessary risks of entanglement." 

The device which is linking the two sections of the robot appears to be a non rigid device, 

dragging along the tiles and beyond the frame of the robot. 

Please note, the reason I'm using the phrase "appears to be" is because it's impossible for us 

to make a certain determination based on a short video clip. 


Answered: Alliance Driver Station Question 

Answered: Alliance Driver Station Question 


Hello! 

My team and I were wondering if it would be legal for our robot to start a match in one of the 

starting tiles but have our drivers in the other tile's driver station so we could see better when 

scoring without having to waste time moving to the other side of the field. 

Example: Our robot begins in the Right Alliance Tile and our Driver is in the station closest to 

the Left Alliance Tile so we could get a better view when scoring in the trough. 

Thanks in Advance! 

Page 89 of 238

Re: Alliance Driver Station Question 




Hello! 

My team and I were wondering if it would be legal for our robot to start a match in one of the 

starting tiles but have our drivers in the other tile's driver station so we could see better when 

scoring without having to waste time moving to the other side of the field. 

Example: Our robot begins in the Right Alliance Tile and our Driver is in the station closest to 

the Left Alliance Tile so we could get a better view when scoring in the trough. 

Thanks in Advance 

Yes, this would be legal. There are no restriction on which Alliance Starting Tile a robot 

chooses with their Alliance. Similarly team members can stand anywhere within their own 

Alliance Station. 

Re: Answered: Alliance Driver Station Question 


Thank you :) 

Re: Answered: Alliance Driver Station Question 


Thank you :) 



Answered: Renamed - Scoring on top of Robots 

Answered: Renamed - Scoring on top of Robots 

Posted by David_17 at 10/10/2012 12:07:16 am 

Say I had a my robot touching the opposite teams trough and just as it ended they dumped 

their sacks on top of my robot would those sacks count? 

Re: trough technicalities 



item 1, regarding reading the entire VEX Sack Attack Manual before posting, item 3 regarding 

quoting the specific rule in question, and item 5 regarding descriptive thread titles. 

Say I had a my robot touching the opposite teams trough and just as it ended they dumped 

their sacks on top of my robot would those sacks count? 

Please see the following thread for the answer to a similar question. 


Re: Answered: Renamed - Scoring on top of Robots 

Posted by David_17 at 10/12/2012 10:27:14 pm 

ok great thanks that was really helpful 

Page 90 of 238

Re: Answered: Renamed - Scoring on top of Robots 


ok great thanks that was really helpful 



Answered: scoring of sacks 

Answered: scoring of sacks 

Posted by edecker@forsyth.k12.ga.us at 10/10/2012 08:26:17 pm 



sack cannot touch non scoring tile. if it is on the scoring tile, but touching the back wall does it 

count? 

Re: scoring of sacks 


sack cannot touch non scoring tile. if it is on the scoring tile, but touching the back wall does it 

count? 


item 1, regarding reading the entire VEX Sack Attack Manual before posting, and item 3 

regarding quoting the specific rule in question. 

From my understanding of your question, I believe your question is dealing with clause 2 of the 

definition of Scored. I've quoted the definition below. 


... 






Since the rules mention no restrictions regarding back wall, touching the back wall is irrelevant 

in determining if a Sack is scored. So a Sack touching the back wall, but meeting all other 

criteria of the definition of Scored would count as being Scored. 


Answered: Material usage 

Answered: Material usage 

Posted by Tnthelium at 10/11/2012 09:47:39 pm 

Dear vEx, 

Our group was wondering if it is legal to put paper clips on our design to provide friction and 

lift the bean bags 

from, 

Page 91 of 238

Re: Material usage 




Tnthelium 


item 1, regarding reading the entire VEX Sack Attack Manual before posting. 

Dear vEx, 

Our group was wondering if it is legal to put paper clips on our design to provide friction and 

lift the bean bags 

from, 

Tnthelium 

No, this would not be legal. , quoted below makes this practice illegal. Robots must 

consist of parts from the VEX Robotics Design System, apart from a few exceptions stated in 

the manual. None of these exceptions cover paper clips. 


Design System 

unless otherwise specifically noted within these rules. 


Answered: Entanglement risk of Expanding Robots 

Answered: Entanglement risk of Expanding Robots 



a. b. c. 

Those that could potentially damage playing field components. Those that could potentially 

damage other competing robots. Those that pose an unnecessary risk of entanglement. 

It's been stated that rigid expansion devices would be legal as they do not pose a risk of 

entanglement. 

If a robot were to split into two separate robots, would a flexible-but-sturdy link between the 

two robots be legal? For example, a tether of c-channels bolted together, between the two 

segments of the robot? Such a device wouldn't drag along the ground or flex enough to 

become caught on an opposing robot, but would be flexible enough to allow the two segments 

of the split robot to move independently of each other. 

Re: Entanglement risk of Expanding Robots 


It's been stated that rigid expansion devices would be legal as they do not pose a risk of 

entanglement. 

If a robot were to split into two separate robots, would a flexible-but-sturdy link between the 

two robots be legal? For example, a tether of c-channels bolted together, between the two 

segments of the robot? Such a device wouldn't drag along the ground or flex enough to 

Page 92 of 238



become caught on an opposing robot, but would be flexible enough to allow the two segments 

of the split robot to move independently of each other. 

From what is described, this appears to be legal. However, any strategies featuring expanding 

robots may be affected by . 

Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or Entanglement of 

Robots are not part of the ethos of the VEX Robotics Competition and are not allowed. 

However, VEX Sack Attack is an interactive game. Some incidental tipping, Entanglement, and 

damage may occur as a part of normal game play. 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 a team being Disqualified from the remainder of the 

competition. 

VEX Sack Attack is intended to be an offensive game. Teams that partake in solely defensive 

strategies will undergo extra scrutiny in regards to . In the case where referees are 

forced to make a judgment call on interaction between a defensive and offensive Robot, the 

referees will err on the side of the offensive Robot. 






All teams are responsible for the actions of their Robots. This goes for teams who are driving 

recklessly and potentially causing damage, but also goes for teams who drive around with a 

small wheel base and arm extended. Teams should design their Robots such that they are not 

tipped over or damaged by minor contact. 



From what is described, this appears to be legal. However, any strategies featuring expanding 

robots may be affected by . 

Thanks, Karthik! 



Thanks, Karthik 



Answered: Parking Question 

Answered: Parking Question 


If two robots of the same color are touching the same alliance starting tile at the end of the 

Page 93 of 238



match, are they both considered parked? 

I believe that the answer to this would be yes, but I'm not sure. 

Re: Parking Question 



item 3 regarding quoting the specific rule from the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual in question. 

If two robots of the same color are touching the same alliance starting tile at the end of the 

match, are they both considered parked? 

I believe that the answer to this would be yes, but I'm not sure. 

Let's take a look at the definition of Parked. 

Parked – A robot is considered to be Parked if it is touching one of its own Alliance Starting 

Tiles at the end of the Match. 

Thus a Robot gets credit for being parked, regardless of the presence of another robot on the 

same tile. So, two Robots on the same Alliance can be Parked on the same Alliance Starting 

Tile. 

Re: Answered: Parking Question 

Posted by Clean Sweep Man at 10/16/2012 12:55:59 am 

Thanks, Karthik. 

Re: Answered: Parking Question 


Thanks, Karthik. 



Answered: Scoring in Skills 

Answered: Scoring in Skills 


If a robot were to score over the boundary line, as in the red trough and blue trough, or red 

high goal and blue high goal, would the scoring be the same as in a match (where both teams 

get the score, effectively doubling the score in this case)? 

Re: Scoring in Skills 


If a robot were to score over the boundary line, as in the red trough and blue trough, or red 

high goal and blue high goal, would the scoring be the same as in a match (where both teams 

get the score, effectively doubling the score in this case)? 

In the future, please be sure to search the Q&A carefully before posting questions in this 



Page 94 of 238

The same question was answered on May 28th: 




The Object will count as Scored twice. Please see the previous response for full details. 


Answered: Robot Ballast 

Answered: Robot Ballast 

Posted by leonb2273 at 10/15/2012 12:56:42 pm 

What can be used for ballast on a robot which is legal for use in competition? (i.e. is it only 

official vex equipment that can be used as ballast?) 

Re: Robot Ballast 



item 3 regarding quoting the specific rule from the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual in question. 

What can be used for ballast on a robot which is legal for use in competition? (i.e. is it only 

official vex equipment that can be used as ballast?) 

Robots must consist of parts from the VEX Robotics Design System, apart from a few 

exceptions stated in the manual. This includes robot ballast. 


Design System 

unless otherwise specifically noted within these rules. 


Answered: Use of tape 

Answered: Use of tape 

Posted by xybram at 10/15/2012 06:08:58 pm 

Can electrical tape be used to bundle wires? 

Can electrical tape or permanent marker be used to make marks on a slider allowing the use 

of a light sensor to determine position? 

Re: Use of tape 



item 1 regarding reading the entire manual before posting, and item 3 regarding quoting the 

specific rule from the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual in question. 

Can electrical tape be used to bundle wires? 

Let's take a look at the specific rule dealing with tape. 

Page 95 of 238











Since the use of tape for bundling wires is not covered here, or in any other part of , this 

procedure would not be legal. 

Can electrical tape or permanent marker be used to make marks on a slider allowing the use 

of a light sensor to determine position? 

Let's take a look at the specific rule dealing with markers for light sensors. 



Thus, what you described would be legal. 


Answered: Discrepancy in Field Drawings on Sack Attack Manual 

Answered: Discrepancy in Field Drawings on Sack Attack Manual 


If you look at Figure 1 on page 3, the isometric view, shows the sacks on the walls 

perpendicular to the trough starting just to the left/right of the corner tile and the next next one. 

The top-down views show the sacks starting on the far corner. See pictures. Which way is it 

supposed to be? Up against the corner or halfway through the tile? 

Re: Discrepancy in Field Drawings on Sack Attack Manual 


If you look at Figure 1 on page 3, the isometric view, shows the sacks on the walls 

perpendicular to the trough starting just to the left/right of the corner tile and the next next one. 

The top-down views show the sacks starting on the far corner. See pictures. Which way is it 

supposed to be? Up against the corner or halfway through the tile? 

Please make you are always viewing the most recent version of the VEX Sack Attack Game 

Manual. The discrepancy you mention was cleared up in April. The Sacks should be up 

against the corner. 


Answered: Where does the trough end? 

Answered: Where does the trough end? 

Posted by Telemascope at 10/20/2012 04:25:37 am 

Page 96 of 238

Hi Karthik! 



I was wondering where the blue and red troughs are deemed to end. 

Clause 1 of the definition scored states that a sack is scored in a trough when: 


of a 


Additionally, part c of clause 1 states that: 

If a Scoring Object meets the criteria of being in both a red and blue High Goal OR both a 


So, my question is, where are the red and blue troughs actually deemed to end? I took an 

example picture, which will hopefully clarify what I am asking: 

http://iforce.co.nz/i/cqkxboay.vvf.jpg 

If the trough ends at the center of the support, this sack would be scored in BOTH troughs. If 

the trough ends at the edge of the support the sack would be scored in only the red trough. So 

does the trough end at the edge of the support between the two troughs, or is it at the center of 

the support between the two troughs? 

I would presume that the trough ends at the centre of the support, at the true outer edge of the 

trough, but I thought I would ask just in case. 

Thanks, 

Lucas 

Re: Where does the trough end? 


Hi Karthik! 

I was wondering where the blue and red troughs are deemed to end. 

Clause 1 of the definition scored states that a sack is scored in a trough when: 

Additionally, part c of clause 1 states that: 

So, my question is, where are the red and blue troughs actually deemed to end? I took an 

example picture, which will hopefully clarify what I am asking: 

http://iforce.co.nz/i/cqkxboay.vvf.jpg 

If the trough ends at the center of the support, this sack would be scored in BOTH troughs. If 

Page 97 of 238



the trough ends at the edge of the support the sack would be scored in only the red trough. So 

does the trough end at the edge of the support between the two troughs, or is it at the center of 

the support between the two troughs? 

I would presume that the trough ends at the centre of the support, at the true outer edge of the 

trough, but I thought I would ask just in case. 

Thanks, 

Lucas 

The trough ends at the edge of the black stanchion separating the two troughs. Thus the 

depicted sack would only count for Red. 

Re: Answered: Where does the trough end? 

Posted by Telemascope at 10/24/2012 06:51:32 pm 

Interesting... 


Re: Answered: Where does the trough end? 


Interesting... 






Posted by Beng at 10/22/2012 02:54:08 pm 

Hi, 

I'm posting for clarification on the below mentioned. 






Based on the attached image, my robot will be moving underneath the trough and scoring the 

trough through the scoop attached (Fig 2.). Question is, will we be penalised under ? 

Please note that we have no intentions to damage the field, aligning our robot using the 

trough, nor anchor our robot on any part of the game elements. Upon throwing the sacks, our 

robot's arm will return to the original position shown in Fig 1. 

Please advise. 


Page 98 of 238


Hi, 

I'm posting for clarification on the below mentioned. 








Based on the attached image, my robot will be moving underneath the trough and scoring the 

trough through the scoop attached (Fig 2.). Question is, will we be penalised under ? 

Please note that we have no intentions to damage the field, aligning our robot using the 

trough, nor anchor our robot on any part of the game elements. Upon throwing the sacks, our 

robot's arm will return to the original position shown in Fig 1. 

Please advise. 

Thank you for your detailed question. What you have described and depicted would not violate 

. This is both a legal design and strategy. 



Thank you very much Karthik. 



Thank you very much Karthik. 



Answered: Clarification of II 

Answered: Clarification of <SG9> II 

Posted by Beng at 10/23/2012 01:14:46 am 

Hi, 

I need some further clarifications about stated: 






Question: If my robot's arm is totally hovering above the trough, or even, touching it while 

Page 99 of 238



scoring the sacks (or forming a closed loop shown in attached.), will my team be also 

penalised for the above mentioned? 

If not, on what extent will the rule be imposed to teams trying to score? I am aware that 

referee's decisions are final, so I hope to be fully clarified on this rule before sending the robot 

out for competition. Thanks. 

Re: Clarification of <SG9> II 


Question: If my robot's arm is totally hovering above the trough, or even, touching it while 

scoring the sacks (or forming a closed loop shown in attached.), will my team be also 

penalised for the above mentioned? The action you've described does not violate and 

would not be penalized. There is no effort to latch on or anchor to field elements, and the robot 

is not in a position to damage field elements. 

If not, on what extent will the rule be imposed to teams trying to score? I am aware that 

referee's decisions are final, so I hope to be fully clarified on this rule before sending the robot 

out for competition. Thanks. 

If a team has made no effort to anchor themselves to the field, and is not in a position to 

damage the field, teams will not be penalized for violating . 

Re: Answered: Clarification of <SG9> II 


thanks for the clarification. 

Re: Answered: Clarification of <SG9> II 


thanks for the clarification. 



Answered: Re-Positioning Question 

Answered: Re-Positioning Question 


Hi Karthik. 

Our robot has a flip down intake that fall down when the robot moves. If we were to re-position 

our robot to point somewhere else while still touching the tile and while we were moving the 

robot, the intake fell down, would we be penalized for making the intake fall down? 

Is this legal? 

Re: Re-Positioning Question 


Hi Karthik. 

Our robot has a flip down intake that fall down when the robot moves. If we were to re-position 

Page 100 of 238



our robot to point somewhere else while still touching the tile and while we were moving the 

robot, the intake fell down, would we be penalized for making the intake fall down? 

Yes, you would be penalized for violating . Specifically: 

... 

Drivers or Coaches also may not change the configuration of the Robot in any way other than 





... 

Since moving causes the intake to flip down, and you are moving the robot, you have thus 

changed the configuration of the robot and are in violation of . 

In the future, please be sure to search the manual and quote the specific rule with your 

question. 


Answered: Clarification on F (Polycarbonate rules) 

Answered: Clarification on <R7>F (Polycarbonate rules) 


...as cut from a single 12" x 24" sheet up to 0.063" thick. 

Hello, 

I can probably answer my own question but i'd just like to make sure. My team wants to use 

polycarbonate on our robot, but their are certain parts that don't need to be .063, we were 

wondering if we could use a bit of .03 but use twice as much of that .03, (just like if we cut the 

Lexan the skinny way). It would still add up to the original 12" x 24" x .063, but we wouldn't 

have to saw it in half to make two thinner sheets. 

Thanks! 

Example is attached:D 

Re: Clarification on <R7>F (Polycarbonate rules) 


Hello, 

I can probably answer my own question but i'd just like to make sure. My team wants to use 

polycarbonate on our robot, but their are certain parts that don't need to be .063, we were 

wondering if we could use a bit of .03 but use twice as much of that .03, (just like if we cut the 

Lexan the skinny way). It would still add up to the original 12" x 24" x .063, but we wouldn't 

have to saw it in half to make two thinner sheets. 

Thanks! 

Example is attached:D 

Page 101 of 238



You are allowed to use different thickness of polycarbonate, however, you are still limited to 

12"x24". For example, if you use .03 material, this does not entitle you to use twice as much. 

Re: Answered: Clarification on <R7>F (Polycarbonate rules) 


Ok, Thanks:D 

Re: Answered: Clarification on <R7>F (Polycarbonate rules) 


Ok, Thanks:D 



Answered: College teams reading motor current 

Answered: College teams reading motor current 

Posted by MBirkel at 10/24/2012 05:45:51 am 

For college teams, the rules say that there are no restrictions on additional sensors and 

electronics with a few exceptions, one of them being "Electronics CANNOT directly interface 

with the VEX Motors." Are we allowed have a current sensor that is placed in series in 

between the wire coming into a VEX Motor and the Cortex? We are not cutting into any wires 

or hacking into any parts of the VEX Motors nor the Cortex. Is this considered "directly" or 

"indirectly" interfacing with the VEX Motors? 

Re: College teams reading motor current 


For college teams, the rules say that there are no restrictions on additional sensors and 

electronics with a few exceptions, one of them being "Electronics CANNOT directly interface 

with the VEX Motors." Are we allowed have a current sensor that is placed in series in 

between the wire coming into a VEX Motor and the Cortex? We are not cutting into any wires 

or hacking into any parts of the VEX Motors nor the Cortex. Is this considered "directly" or 

"indirectly" interfacing with the VEX Motors? 

This would be legal, provided the device is used for measurement only. 


Answered: Parking bonus clarification 

Answered: Parking bonus clarification 

Posted by WCHS Programmer at 10/24/2012 09:41:57 pm 


Tiles at the 


This explicitly states the bonus is granted at the end of the match. This definition is also 

supported by the 7th bullet point under Game Rules > Scoring: The Alliance with the most 

Robots Parked at the end of the match receives ten (10) points. 

However, the statement below implies that a bonus is also granted immediately after 

autonomous. 

At the end of the Autonomous Period the Alliance with the most points, excluding points for 

Page 102 of 238

Parked 

Robots, receives a ten (10) point bonus. 

Re: Parking bonus clarification 




This explicitly states the bonus is granted at the end of the match. This definition is also 

supported by the 7th bullet point under Game Rules > Scoring: 

However, the statement below implies that a bonus is also granted immediately after 

autonomous. 

The only points for Parking are awarded at the end of the Match. The statement you 

referenced regarding the Autonomous Bonus was only used to try and make it abundantly 

clear that Parking has no effect on the autonomous bonus. 


Answered: Renamed: Scored in High Goal and Trough 

Answered: Renamed: Scored in High Goal and Trough 

Posted by 1961C-ROBOTICS at 10/25/2012 12:49:45 am 

This may be weeding much too much into a rule, but as the rule change to Scoring has been 

clarafied, if a sack were to be scored in a high goal, but were hang off onto the opposing 

teams low goal would this count. As for example, say a sack is scored in blues high goal, but a 

some of it is hanging off into the red trough side, braking the invisible plane that is stated, 

would that be scored for both a red trough and a blue high goal. 

Thanks Very Much, 

1961C 

Re: Scoring Question 


Please make sure to read the Q&A Usage Guidelines before posting a question. Specifically 

item 1, which discusses reading and searching the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual before 

posting, 

This may be weeding much too much into a rule, but as the rule change to Scoring has been 

clarafied, if a sack were to be scored in a high goal, but were hang off onto the opposing 

teams low goal would this count. As for example, say a sack is scored in blues high goal, but a 

some of it is hanging off into the red trough side, braking the invisible plane that is stated, 

would that be scored for both a red trough and a blue high goal. 

The definition of Scored addresses your exact question. I've quoted the definition and bolded 

pertinent text. 






Page 103 of 238







2. A Scoring Object is touching a Floor Goal, and not touching any other foam tiles. For a 

Scoring Object to count under either clause, it must remain in a Scored position, if/when all 

Robots were removed from the field. (By removed, we mean removing the robot and its 



Thus any Object which could be considered Scored in both a High Goal and a Trough, would 

only count in the High Goal. 

Re: Answered: Renamed: Scored in High Goal and Trough 

Posted by 1961C-ROBOTICS at 10/25/2012 11:44:22 pm 

Alrighty Thank you, I wasn't sure it the fact of diffrent colors would have an effect or not. 

Re: Answered: Renamed: Scored in High Goal and Trough 


Alrighty Thank you, I wasn't sure it the fact of diffrent colors would have an effect or not. 



Answered: String for winch&pulley 

Answered: String for winch&pulley 


Is it legal to go buy longer pieces of string for a winch&pulley system? I know the rules say 

that we can use anything the is equivalent to something we can get from the VEX website. 

Could we buy identical string on a longer strand and still be legal under this rule? 

Re: String for winch&pulley 


Is it legal to go buy longer pieces of string for a winch&pulley system? I know the rules say 


Could we buy identical string on a longer strand and still be legal under this rule? 

No, this would not be legal. Using pieces of string longer than are available in the VEX 

Robotics Design System would violate , quoted below. 





Re: Answered: String for winch&pulley 

Posted by MBirkel at 10/26/2012 06:49:44 pm 

What if we used two pieces of rope that were the same length as sold in the winch&pulley kit 

and spliced/melted/tied them together? 

Page 104 of 238





What if we used two pieces of rope that were the same length as sold in the winch&pulley kit 

and spliced/melted/tied them together? 

Splicing and tying the legal pieces of rope together is allowed; however, melting is not legal. 

Please see , quoted below, for more information: 




• Mechanical fasteners may be secured using Loctite or a similar thread-locking product. 

o This may be used for securing hardware ONLY. 

• Teams are permitted to fuse/melt the end of the 1/8” nylon rope to prevent fraying 

• The gluing permitted by is an exception to this rule. 



Online, it specifies the rope from the winch&pulley kit as just nylon, braided. I went and 

purchased some braided nylon rope that is the same diameter as the rope from the kit, but the 

braiding is slightly firmer. Will we be allowed to use it? And if not, how stringent are the 

regulations, when online there are no details that give us the exact specifications for the VEX 

rope? 



Online, it specifies the rope from the winch&pulley kit as just nylon, braided. I went and 

purchased some braided nylon rope that is the same diameter as the rope from the kit, but the 

braiding is slightly firmer. Will we be allowed to use it? And if not, how stringent are the 

regulations, when online there are no details that give us the exact specifications for the VEX 

rope? 

The final determination of whether a part is considered to be "identical" to a VEX part will be 

made by the inspectors at your event. From what you've described, it sounds like the rope 

would be legal, however it's difficult to determine without being able to see/touch/feel the rope 

you're using. 


Answered: More String questions 

Answered: More String questions 


"Is it legal to go buy longer pieces of string for a winch&pulley system? I know the rules say 


Could we buy identical string on a longer strand and still be legal under this rule? " 

Page 105 of 238

Hi Karthik, 



You recently answered this about buying longer string, but if we buy or use the VEX string the 

same length and then tie it together and then doubled the length, would that be legal? 

Thank you! 

Robert 

Re: More String questions 


"Is it legal to go buy longer pieces of string for a winch&pulley system? I know the rules say 


Could we buy identical string on a longer strand and still be legal under this rule? " 

Hi Karthik, 

You recently answered this about buying longer string, but if we buy or use the VEX string the 

same length and then tie it together and then doubled the length, would that be legal? 

Yes, this would be legal. Here's the answer to a similar question posted today on the same 

topic. 



Answered: Anti-Slip Mat 

Answered: Anti-Slip Mat 

Posted by Team918D at 10/26/2012 05:49:52 am 

I found some anti-slip mat that looks similiar to the official VEX Anti-slip mat except it is white. 

Is using another mat legal? How can I tell if it is identical to the VEX anti-slip mat. 

Re: Anti-Slip Mat 


I found some anti-slip mat that looks similiar to the official VEX Anti-slip mat except it is white. 

Is using another mat legal? How can I tell if it is identical to the VEX anti-slip mat. 

Using anti-slip mat not obtained from VEX is legal, if the mat is identical (except for colour). 

Things to look for when determining if the mat is identical to the VEX mat include: Thickness, 

geometry of the raised and lowered sections, making sure the size of your mat is no bigger 

than the size of the VEX mat, etc. 

Re: Answered: Anti-Slip Mat 

Posted by Team918D at 10/31/2012 05:08:41 am 

Thanks! We found some stuff in Home Depot. 

Re: Answered: Anti-Slip Mat 


Thanks! We found some stuff in Home Depot. 

Page 106 of 238



Answered: Specification for G11 

Answered: Specification for G11 

Posted by Welshkiwi at 10/26/2012 09:19:52 am 



I have a couple questions regarding what G11 covers and doesn't cover. 

1) A 'wallbot' that can expand and contract willingly and is only used for defence. Eg a robot 

that after expanding, can contract to fit itself into the original 18" cube and is no longer using 

blockers in a defencive manner. Is is still discriminated against by G11a? 


more scrutiny under , and will not be protected under 

2) Once again in the case of a wallbot. If an offensive robot attempts to move the wallbot and 

gets entangled, then the wallbot contracts so there is no chance of un-entangling the robots. I 

assume this would be covered by : 

In the case where referees are forced to make a judgment call on interaction between a 

defensive and offensive Robot, the referees will err on the side of the offensive Robot. 

and thus the offensive robot would not be at fault. In this instance would the defensive robot 

be DQ'd for entanglement 

That's all! Thanks in advance. 

Re: Specification for G11 


I have a couple questions regarding what G11 covers and doesn't cover. 

1) A 'wallbot' that can expand and contract willingly and is only used for defence. Eg a robot 

that after expanding, can contract to fit itself into the original 18" cube and is no longer using 

blockers in a defencive manner. Is is still discriminated against by G11a? 

will only apply to a robot which is utilizing its expansion to obstruct the field. If a robot 

has contracted back to its original size, would no longer apply. 

2) Once again in the case of a wallbot. If an offensive robot attempts to move the wallbot and 

gets entangled, then the wallbot contracts so there is no chance of un-entangling the robots. I 

assume this would be covered by : 

and thus the offensive robot would not be at fault. In this instance would the defensive robot 

be DQ'd for entanglement 

Page 107 of 238



Yes, you are correct. In this case the "wall-bot" would be considered responsible for the 

entanglement and possibly punished by . 

Re: Specification for G11 

Posted by Welshkiwi at 10/27/2012 11:37:35 am 

Thanks Karthik! I'm sure this will be useful to some other referees. I know it has been for me. 


Answered: Pinning in trough 

Answered: Pinning in trough 

Posted by karpiron at 10/28/2012 09:08:44 pm 

Pinning – A Robot is considered to be Pinning an opposing Robot if it is inhibiting the 

movement of an opponent Robot while the opposing Robot is in contact with the foam playing 

surface and another Field Element. 

During a recent tournament I ref'd a Red robot was trying to descore a sack from the Blue 

trough. A Blue robot placed it's arm on top of the Red robot's arm and a stalemate occured. As 

I saw it Red was contacting the sack against the trough and Blue held Red. I reasoned that 

since the red robot's arm was in contact with a sack, pinning did not apply. Was I correct? 

Re: Pinning in trough 





During a recent tournament I ref'd a Red robot was trying to descore a sack from the Blue 

trough. A Blue robot placed it's arm on top of the Red robot's arm and a stalemate occured. As 

I saw it Red was contacting the sack against the trough and Blue held Red. I reasoned that 

since the red robot's arm was in contact with a sack, pinning did not apply. Was I correct? 

A situation like the one you have described would be considered pinning. If there is contact 

with a sack that is in contact with field element, this would suffice to satisfy the contact 

requirement of pinning. 


Answered: Question on definition of "score" during Autonomous and referee interaction 

Answered: Question on definition of "score" during Autonomous and referee 

interaction 


It the event a robot is "touching" a scoring object at the end of the autonomous period should 

a referee "remove" the robot from the field or "gently pull robots away from the Goal" in order 

to check scoring? Several questions here: 

1. Should the referee ALWAYS remove or pull the robot away to check the score or is speed 

Page 108 of 238



important and the referee should only check this if the outcome could change? 

2. Where should the robot be placed after removal? 

3. If a robot is moved/removed and objects fall - should the stay where they fall? 

3a. What if a scoring object falls into the trough from the high goal? 

4. If a robot is moved/removed and objects fall on the robot (where they could possibly hinder 

the robots normal movement) should the referee remove the scoring objects before the driver 

control period? 

Hope you understand what I am trying to get at. (I am referring to scoring objects which may 

be "supported" rather than simply "touched") 

Regards, 

Dave G. 

Re: Question on definition of "score" during Autonomous and referee interaction 


It the event a robot is "touching" a scoring object at the end of the autonomous period should 

a referee "remove" the robot from the field or "gently pull robots away from the Goal" in order 

to check scoring? Several questions here: 

1. Should the referee ALWAYS remove or pull the robot away to check the score or is speed 

important and the referee should only check this if the outcome could change? 

Robots should only be pulled away when absolutely necessary to determine the score. In the 

case of determining the score after the Autonomous Period, robots should only be pulled away 

in the most extreme cases. 

2. Where should the robot be placed after removal? 

A close to the original position, while still allowing for an quick and accurate score 

determination. 

3. If a robot is moved/removed and objects fall - should the stay where they fall? 

Yes. 

3a. What if a scoring object falls into the trough from the high goal? 

It would remain in the Trough. 

4. If a robot is moved/removed and objects fall on the robot (where they could possibly hinder 

the robots normal movement) should the referee remove the scoring objects before the driver 

control period? 

No, they should be left where they fall. 

Page 109 of 238



The most important takeaways from this question are that referees should only move robots 

when they absolutely have to and when doing they must exercise an extreme amount care to 

ensure they disrupt the field as little as possible. 


Answered: Additional Clarification of SG9 

Answered: Additional Clarification of SG9 

Posted by TikiTech at 10/30/2012 12:10:08 am 

Aloha! 

I have seen a few posts and videos of dump bots scoring from underneth and the sides of the 

trough. Then covering the trough from the side. Our question comes from a situation we have 

seen in a match. 

Is it allowed for the dumping mechanism covering the trough on the robot to apply pressure to 

the trough to keep other robots from moving it? In fact lifiting a portion of the robot off the 

ground when it is covering the trough. 






From our understanding since the trough is supporting part of the robots weight this is not 

allowed. Can you please clear this up for us. 

Crude picture attached: 

6874 

Thanks! 

Tiki Tech 

Re: Additional Clairification of SG9 


Aloha! 

I have seen a few posts and videos of dump bots scoring from underneth and the sides of the 

trough. Then covering the trough from the side. Our question comes from a situation we have 

seen in a match. 

Is it allowed for the dumping mechanism covering the trough on the robot to apply pressure to 

the trough to keep other robots from moving it? In fact lifiting a portion of the robot off the 

ground when it is covering the trough. 

Page 110 of 238








From our understanding since the trough is supporting part of the robots weight this is not 

allowed. Can you please clear this up for us. 

If a Robot is intentionally supporting part of its weight on the trough, it is at a risk of damaging 

the field and could be called for violating . Any efforts to hang off the trough are not 

permitted. 

Re: Answered: Additional Clarification of SG9 

Posted by TikiTech at 11/01/2012 08:25:22 pm 

Glad to have this verified for our future tournaments. 

Thanks for your quick reply! 

See you at the world championships! 

TikiTech 

Team#3880 

Re: Answered: Additional Clarification of SG9 


Glad to have this verified for our future tournaments. 

Thanks for your quick reply! 

See you at the world championships! 

TikiTech 

Team#3880 



Answered: Pneumatic end-game release 

Answered: Pneumatic end-game release 


I know in other robotics competitions that I have seen, teams had an end-game mechanism 

connected to pneumatics. The default position for the pneumatics was such that as soon as 

the buzzer went off and their robot was then put in a disabled state, the pneumatics popped 

back to their default position and triggered and end-game mechanism. Would something like 

Page 111 of 238

this be legal in VEX? 

Re: Pneumatic end-game release 




I know in other robotics competitions that I have seen, teams had an end-game mechanism 

connected to pneumatics. The default position for the pneumatics was such that as soon as 

the buzzer went off and their robot was then put in a disabled state, the pneumatics popped 

back to their default position and triggered and end-game mechanism. Would something like 

this be legal in VEX? 

There no rules preventing this type of setup. 


Answered: Identical Part Under ? 

Answered: Identical Part Under <R7b>? 

Posted by EAKC at 11/01/2012 01:56:38 am 

Would these count as an identical part under ? 

Currently there is a debate within my club and we really want to be sure before we get them to 

be safe at tournaments. 

Thank you! 






Re: Identical Part Under <R7b>? 


Would these count as an identical part under ? 

Currently there is a debate within my club and we really want to be sure before we get them to 

be safe at tournaments. 

Thank you! 






No, they would not. There is no way for an inspector to know if the internals of that battery are 

the same as that of the official VEX battery. As such, the only legal types of batteries are VEX 

7.2V Robot Battery Packs. This is also stated in of the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual. 

The only allowable sources of electrical power for a VEX Robotics Competition Robot 

Page 112 of 238



is any single (1) VEX 7.2V Robot Battery Pack of any type, unless the robot is utilizing the VEX 

Power Expander, and a single (1) 9V backup battery. Robots utilizing the VEX Power 

Expander can use a second (2) VEX 7.2V Robot Battery of any type. 


Posted by EAKC at 11/02/2012 09:30:27 pm 

Thank you Karthik! 



Thank you Karthik 



Answered: Using tape to secure wires into cortex ports 

Answered: Using tape to secure wires into cortex ports 

Posted by Warrior5 at 11/01/2012 02:36:00 am 

Hi Karthik, 

I seem to remember this question being last year but I was unable to locate the thread in 

question. Here is some quoted text from the official VEX Sack Attack Manual. 


 








Now my question is this: Is it permissible to use a small amount of tape to hold wires into the 

cortex motor ports? While not specifically mentioned above, I believe it could fall into the 

bolded subsection since the ports are similar to the connectors on a wire. 

Thanks! 

Re: Using tape to secure wires into cortex ports 


Hi Karthik, 

I seem to remember this question being last year but I was unable to locate the thread in 

question. Here is some quoted text from the official VEX Sack Attack Manual. 

Now my question is this: Is it permissible to use a small amount of tape to hold wires into the 

cortex motor ports? While not specifically mentioned above, I believe it could fall into the 

bolded subsection since the ports are similar to the connectors on a wire. 

Thanks 

Page 113 of 238



This would not be permitted, in accordance to the above quoted rules. Consider using the 

Competition Cortex Wire Retaining Clips as a legal and more elegant solution. 


Posted by Warrior5 at 11/28/2012 05:15:51 pm 

This would not be permitted, in accordance to the above quoted rules. Consider using the 

Competition Cortex Wire Retaining Clips as a legal and more elegant solution. 

Ok. The reason I was asking was we could not locate any clips so before we bought more we 

wanted to check. Thanks! 



Ok. The reason I was asking was we could not locate any clips so before we bought more we 

wanted to check. Thanks 



Answered: Clarification on scoring 

Answered: Clarification on scoring 

Posted by therealcedz at 11/02/2012 05:08:21 am 

Hey Karthik! 

I have a question about which robot should be pulled away first in specific conditions. 


all 

Robots were removed from the field. (By removed, we mean removing the robot and its 

contents 

from the field. Referees will be instructed to gently pull robots away from the Goal if necessary) 

i.e. 

The Scoring Object must not be supported by the Robot. 

If at the end of the match, the robots were in this position: 

http://cl.ly/image/3u2R42222X0a/Screen%20shot%202012-11-01%20at%209.54.58%20PM.p 

ng 

with the red alliance robot underneath the sacks (green balls) and the blue alliance robot with 

the open end of the hopper facing towards the trough, how would a referee approach this 

situation? 

If the red robot were to be pulled away first, the sacks might be in this position: 

http://cl.ly/image/1E0J0l2r2L1A/Screen%20shot%202012-11-01%20at%209.55.22%20PM.png 

If the blue robot were to be pulled away first, the result might look like this: 

http://cl.ly/image/2G0v301L3Q27/Screen%20shot%202012-11-01%20at%209.55.48%20PM.p 

ng 

Page 114 of 238



So my question is, which robot would be pulled away first in such situations? 

Re: Clarification on scoring 


Hey Karthik! 

I have a question about which robot should be pulled away first in specific conditions. 

So my question is, which robot would be pulled away first in such situations? 

The only Robots which will be pulled away are ones where there is a clear question of support. 

(i.e. You cannot tell if a Scoring Object is supported without pulling it away) If two Robot are 

supporting the same Object at the same time, then both Robots would be pulled away 

simultaneously at the same gentle rate. 


Answered: Even More Clarification: Robot Using Trough for "Wheelie" 

Answered: Even More <SG9> Clarification: Robot Using Trough for "Wheelie" 

Posted by ckimes17 at 11/03/2012 02:16:03 am 

Hi Karthik, 






In this thread you ruled: 

"If a Robot is intentionally supporting part of its weight on the trough, it is at a risk of damaging 

the field and could be called for violating . Any efforts to hang off the trough are not 

permitted." 

I had a few questions regarding this ruling. 

1) Are you saying that such action is illegal? Or does this depend on the refree's judgement at 

the event as it is difficult to make a blanket ruling? Is "popping a wheelie" on the trough in itself 

automatically "likely to damage the field," or is this more on a case-by-case basis? 

Under what circumstances are "popping a wheelie" on the trough permitted, if any? 

2) Let's say a robot were in the "scoring phase" exactly as depicted in the quoted thread (not 

suspended off the ground), and were to simply over-rotate its arm momentarily and elevated 

its wheels off the ground. The driver immediately lowers back down as soon as they realized 

they momentarily hung. Because this is not a sustained "hang" as a sack-defense maneuver, 

and instead was just a momentary driver error, would this face scrutiny as described in your 

original ruling? 

Re: Even More <SG9> Clarification: Robot Using Trough for "Wheelie" 

Page 115 of 238




1) Are you saying that such action is illegal? Or does this depend on the refree's judgement at 

the event as it is difficult to make a blanket ruling? Is "popping a wheelie" on the trough in itself 

automatically "likely to damage the field," or is this more on a case-by-case basis? 

Under what circumstances are "popping a wheelie" on the trough permitted, if any? 

This will be evaluated on a case by case basis. Accidental and momentary occasions of 

hanging off the trough would not be penalized. 

2) Let's say a robot were in the "scoring phase" exactly as depicted in the quoted thread (not 

suspended off the ground), and were to simply over-rotate its arm momentarily and elevated 

its wheels off the ground. The driver immediately lowers back down as soon as they realized 

they momentarily hung. Because this is not a sustained "hang" as a sack-defense maneuver, 

and instead was just a momentary driver error, would this face scrutiny as described in your 

original ruling? 

This type of action would be legal. 

Basically, accidentally hanging off the trough or getting stuck on it is not going to be penalized. 

Egregious cases of teams attaching and hanging off the trough will be penalized. 

Re: Answered: Even More <SG9> Clarification: Robot Using Trough for 

"Wheelie" 

Posted by ckimes17 at 11/08/2012 05:05:29 am 

Thanks for the response Karthik! And for all the other hard work you do for the robotics 

community! 

Re: Answered: Even More <SG9> Clarification: Robot Using Trough for 

"Wheelie" 


Thanks for the response Karthik! And for all the other hard work you do for the robotics 

community 

You're welcome, and thanks for the kind words! 


Answered: Clarification on Skills Challenege Match Loads 

Answered: Clarification on Skills Challenege Match Loads 

Posted by Ryantech at 11/04/2012 06:12:27 am 

Karthik, 

You have stated that during normal match play, gently placing sacks on your own alliance 

starting tile is a legal way to score points. 

Any Scoring Objects introduced during the Match must be either gently placed on a 

Robot of your 

own color touching an Alliance Starting Tile or gently placed on an Alliance Starting Tile of 

Page 116 of 238



your own 

color. The intent of this rule is to allow teams to introduce objects into play, but not to impart 

energy on 

the scoring object which will cause it to end up in a Scored position in a Trough or a High Goal. 

Violations of this rule will result in a warning for minor offenses which do not affect the match. 

Egregious 

(match affecting) offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams who receive multiple 

warnings may 

also receive a Disqualification at the head referee's discretion. 

• A Driver or Coach may introduce Driver Control Loads at any point during the Driver 

Controlled 

Period. 

Is is correct to assume that the same legality is carried over to Robot and Programming Skills 

challenge. Applicable rule quote below: 

Robot Skills Match Loads may be introduced on any Alliance Starting Tile 

Programming Skills Match Loads may be introduced on any Alliance Starting Tile 

As a quick side note, I saw a version of the manual at my last competition that spelled out this 

exact scenario for normal gameplay under the Specific Game Rules, but I cannot seem to find 

that anymore. 

Thanks, 

Ryan 

Re: Clarification on Skills Challenege Match Loads 


Karthik, 

You have stated that during normal match play, gently placing sacks on your own alliance 

starting tile is a legal way to score points. 

Is is correct to assume that the same legality is carried over to Robot and Programming Skills 

challenge. Applicable rule quote below: 

Yes, this is legal in both Skills Challenges. 


Answered: Question 

Answered: <SG4> Question 


Page 117 of 238



Hi at a event recently we ran into a question that i would like a official answer that i can print 

out and show a future events. 

We thought that during the autonomous period that as long as the robot does the scoring then 

it was legal, for example we reposition the robot to face the trough then the robot moves to the 

trough and scores the sacks on its own. 

The rule was interpreted as if we were to reposition the robot anytime during the 

autonomous period, we would not be able to score for the remainder of the autonomous 

period. 

We would like to know what the correct ruling is. 

Thank you for your time. 

Re: <SG4> Question 


Hi at a event recently we ran into a question that i would like a official answer that i can print 

out and show a future events. 

We thought that during the autonomous period that as long as the robot does the scoring then 

it was legal, for example we reposition the robot to face the trough then the robot moves to the 

trough and scores the sacks on its own. 

The rule was interpreted as if we were to reposition the robot anytime during the 

autonomous period, we would not be able to score for the remainder of the autonomous 

period. 

We would like to know what the correct ruling is. 

Thank you for your time. 

Let's take a look at from the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual. I've bolded some 

pertinent text for emphasis. 






allowed in 









Page 118 of 238



onto the tile. 

Note: Robots that hang over the edge of the Alliance Starting Tile, but do not touch any gray 

foam tiles, are considered to be in legal positions for interaction as per 

During contact with the Robot, the Drivers or Coaches may not intentionally manipulate or 

modify the position of any Scoring Objects relative to the Robot’s overall system, either 

by direct hand contact or indirect contact via the Robot. ( i.e. it is acceptable to change the 

orientation of a Robot that includes Scoring Objects in it as long as the position of the 

elements relative to the Robot is not changed). 




changes to the Robot’s configuration performed during the act of repair must be 

reversed before the Robot can leave the Alliance Starting Tile. 





are controlling the Robot via human contact or creating motions that lead to scoring. 


Egregious (match affecting) offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams who receive 

multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the head referee's discretion. 

During the Driver Controlled Period, Drivers and Coaches may 

Teams are allowed to aim/reorient/reposition their robots during their autonomous period. As 

long as the robot has been brought back into a legal starting position, as per , the robot 

is free to go score after this type of aiming. 

Re: Answered: <SG4> Question 


Thank you! :D 

Re: Answered: <SG4> Question 


Thank you! :D 



Answered: Robot touching gray tiles during auto repositioning 

Answered: Robot touching gray tiles during auto repositioning <SG4> 

Posted by misterG at 11/04/2012 07:41:06 pm 

This question relates to section SG4. 

Page 119 of 238




while the 

Robot is in contact with their own Alliance Starting Tile (i.e. the tile the Robot started the match 

on), 

within the following restrictions. 


Starting 

Tile and no part of the Robot is touching a gray foam tile, except the interaction allowed in 

 


to 

bring the Robot fully into the legal Alliance Starting Tile, into a legal position as per 



is touching the legal Alliance Starting Tile and no part of the Robot is touching a gray foam 

tile; a legal position as per . i.e. Before the Robot leaves the Alliance Starting Tile, 

Drivers and Coaches may not be touching the robot. If Drivers and Coaches touch the Robot 

again, it must be touching a legal Alliance Starting Tile and it must immediately be brought 

fully back onto the tile. 



During the autonomous period a robot returns to its alliance starting tile and a coach correctly 

re-positions the robot so that is touching only the alliance tile as per SG4ii. In the next action 

the coach rotates the robot in such a way that the wheels make contact with the gray tiles. (In 

some cases the robot base is so large that it is not physically possible to rotate completely 

inside the square). This leads to the question which is: Are interactions that involve intentional 

contact with the gray (non-alliance) tiles considered legal interactions under SG4? 

Thanks for your answer, 

-Al 

Re: Robot touching gray tiles during auto repositioning <SG4> 


This leads to the question which is: Are interactions that involve intentional contact with the 

gray (non-alliance) tiles considered legal interactions under SG4? 

No, they are not. While legally handling the Robot during the Autonomous Period, the Robot 

may not contact any tiles aside from the Alliance Starting Tile. Teams with large robots will 

have to take extra care in these situations. 


Answered: Sandbagging 

Answered: Sandbagging 

Posted by scidkelly at 11/10/2012 02:33:42 pm 

Page 120 of 238



Is sandbagging an opponent's robot legal? In other words, can you intentionally use your 

robot to place sacks around or on an opponent’s robot to impede their game play? Does this 

constitute pinning or trapping; or does it fall under the game animation’ s warning, “when 

designing your robot remember sacks can be real obstacles” ? 

Re: Sandbagging 


Is sandbagging an opponent's robot legal? In other words, can you intentionally use your 

robot to place sacks around or on an opponent’s robot to impede their game play? Does this 

constitute pinning or trapping; or does it fall under the game animation’ s warning, “when 

designing your robot remember sacks can be real obstacles” ? 

Rule prohibits the intentional placement of Sacks on top of opposing robots. However, 

placing Sacks in front or around robots as an obstacle is legal. 




Answered: Robot placement before match 

Answered: Robot placement before match 

Posted by smtoney at 11/11/2012 01:08:25 pm 

Is it legal to use an aiming device, that is not part of the robot, to position the robot for the 

match? The device would be removed prior to match start. 

Thanks, 

Stan 

Re: Robot placement before match 


Is it legal to use an aiming device, that is not part of the robot, to position the robot for the 

match? The device would be removed prior to match start. 

This would be legal as long as the robot is still placed on the field in a prompt fashion with 

minimal disruptions. Please use common sense here. Quickly using a small cardboard 

template would be fine. Using a 12' long pole to line your robot up with the field would not be 

fine. 

Re: Answered: Robot placement before match 


Thanks for the Reply. 

Stan 

Re: Answered: Robot placement before match 




Page 121 of 238



Answered: Further question on scoring esp during autonomous 

Answered: Further question on scoring esp during autonomous 








all Robots were removed from the field. 

I read this as meaning that if a robot is touching a sack from above or the side, but in no way 

supporting the sack, while that sack is in a trough or high goal, it should be counted as scored. 

Correct? 

Is there any difference on this happening at the end of autonomous or at the end of driver 

control? (I'm especially interested in at end of autonomous; if the robot was theoretically 

moved and the sack would not have moved, should it score for the purposes of autonomous 

bonus?) 

Thanks, 

Stan 

Re: Further question on scoring esp during autonomous 


I read this as meaning that if a robot is touching a sack from above or the side, but in no way 

supporting the sack, while that sack is in a trough or high goal, it should be counted as scored. 

Correct? 

Yes, provided that clause 1a. is not violated. "For a Scoring Object to count under this clause, 

it must not be touching a Robot of the same color as the Goal" 

Is there any difference on this happening at the end of autonomous or at the end of driver 

control? (I'm especially interested in at end of autonomous; if the robot was theoretically 

moved and the sack would not have moved, should it score for the purposes of autonomous 

bonus?) 

Scores are calculated the same way at the end of Autonomous Mode as they are at the end of 

Driver Control Mode. 



Thanks for responding to these often nit-picky questions. 

Yes, provided that clause 1a. is not violated. "For a Scoring Object to count under this clause, 

it must not be touching a Robot of the same color as the Goal" 

Page 122 of 238



That would seem to produce an inconsistency. Example; blue robot touching sack in Blue goal 

at end of autonomous. By reading rule 1a only, no score. 

But add in 


all Robots were removed from the field. 

and it seems that the robot should be mentally "moved" to test the supported proviso and then 

the robot is not touching and the sack would have stayed; then the sack scores. 

Which is it? 

Stan 



Thanks for responding to these often nit-picky questions. 

That would seem to produce an inconsistency. Example; blue robot touching sack in Blue goal 

at end of autonomous. By reading rule 1a only, no score. 

This is correct, it is not scored. 

and it seems that the robot should be mentally "moved" to test the supported proviso and then 

the robot is not touching and the sack would have stayed; then the sack scores. 

Robots are only moved if it is absolutely necessary to determine whether a Sack is supported 

by a robot. In the case where a blue robot is touching a Sack in blue goal, it is obvious that the 

Sack should not count, thus there is no need to apply this test. 

Re: Answered: Further question on scoring esp during autonomous 


Thank you again for putting up with nit picky questioners. 

Stan 

Re: Answered: Further question on scoring esp during autonomous 


Thank you again for putting up with nit picky questioners. 



Page 123 of 238

Answered: Pneumatics Air Pressure 

Answered: Pneumatics Air Pressure 




What is the maximum PSI that you can put on the pneumatic tanks? We were told that it was a 

max of 100 psi, but we couldn't find the rule that says so. The tanks also have a label that says 

the maximum pressure on those tanks is 200 psi. Can I get a final word on if there is a limit 

(other than that 200 psi) on that or not? 

Re: Pneumatics Air Pressure 


What is the maximum PSI that you can put on the pneumatic tanks? We were told that it was a 

max of 100 psi, but we couldn't find the rule that says so. The tanks also have a label that says 

the maximum pressure on those tanks is 200 psi. Can I get a final word on if there is a limit 

(other than that 200 psi) on that or not? 

100 psi is the maximum safe system pressure for the VEX pneumatics. As such charging the 

tanks to any pressure greater than 100 psi would not be competition legal or recommended for 

non competition use. 









Answered: Rule SG8, placing sacks on opposing robot when descoring. 

Answered: Rule SG8, placing sacks on opposing robot when descoring. 

Posted by jpearman at 11/12/2012 09:50:45 pm 

I would like to get clarification on whether the following scenarios are legal and should or 

should not result in a team getting disqualified. 

1. Blue robot has scored many sacks in a trough. Red robot is able to de-score the sacks, 

some of which fall on the blue robot. The blue robot's ability to function is not impaired. 

Should red be disqualified ? 


some of which fall on the blue robot. The blue robot's is disabled due to sacks falling into it's 

drive system. 


3. Blue robot has scored many sacks in a trough and parks under the trough as a means of 

Page 124 of 238



defense. Red robot is able to de-score the sacks, some of which fall on the blue robot. 


The only rules I see that perhaps apply in these situation are as follows. 


Scoring, on an 

opposing robot. Violations of this rule will result in a Disqualification. 

This rule mentions scoring but not descoring. 

You had given some clarification of this back in May but that was specific to scoring only. 


also perhaps this rule applies. 


Robots are 

not part of the ethos of the VEX Robotics Competition and are not allowed. However, VEX 

Sack Attack is 

an interactive game. Some incidental tipping, Entanglement, and damage may occur as a part 

of normal 

game play. 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 a team being 

Disqualified 

from the remainder of the competition. 

Descoring is obviously a big part of this years game but it is rarely mentioned in the Sack 

Attack game manual leaving some of these situations open to referee interpretation. 

Re: Rule SG8, placing sacks on opposing robot when descoring. 


I would like to get clarification on whether the following scenarios are legal and should or 

should not result in a team getting disqualified. 


some of which fall on the blue robot. The blue robot's ability to function is not impaired. 



Page 125 of 238



some of which fall on the blue robot. The blue robot's is disabled due to sacks falling into it's 

drive system. 


3. Blue robot has scored many sacks in a trough and parks under the trough as a means of 

defense. Red robot is able to de-score the sacks, some of which fall on the blue robot. 


Placing Sacks on robots while directly in the process of Descoring is not a violation of , 

as it would be considered an accidental act. However, if a robot were to pull Sacks out of a 

Trough, turn, and then drop the Sacks on an opposing robot, this would be considered 

intentional and a violation of . 

Basically, if Sacks end up on a Robot during the natural process of descoring, this will be 

considered accidental. If a Robot descores, then goes out of its way to place the Sacks on an 

opposing robot, this will be considered intentional. 

Re: Answered: Rule SG8, placing sacks on opposing robot when descoring. 

Posted by jpearman at 11/15/2012 04:44:37 pm 

Thanks for the reply Karthik, it certainly makes sense to me and is in line with my own thinking. 

Occasionally refs forget what is probably the most important rule in the manual. 


common 


Regards 

James. 

Re: Answered: Rule SG8, placing sacks on opposing robot when descoring. 




Answered: RubberBands 

Answered: RubberBands 

Posted by rpayne12 at 11/14/2012 09:52:53 pm 

Can non vex rubberbands be used on the sack attack robots to pass inspection? 

Re: RubberBands 


Can non vex rubberbands be used on the sack attack robots to pass inspection? 

Yes, provided they comply with Rule (quoted below); they must be identical to the 

Page 126 of 238

ubber bands available in the VEX Robotics Design System. 








Answered: Tipping 

Answered: <G11> Tipping 

Posted by Net Robot at 11/15/2012 09:22:00 pm 

in the thread It seems too overpowering you said: 

"If a robot has expanded in an effort to obstruct the field, you are no longer protected by 

while teams try and get past your obstruction. What this means is that you should 

expect and be prepared for vigourous interaction from the team trying to get past you" 

1. If a red team robot has expanded upwards and is blocking the red side of the trough to 

prevent a blue team robot on the blue side of the trough from de-scoring, can the blue team 

robot push the red team robot while attempting to push the bags out of the trough? 

If the red team robot is tipped over in the process of trying to descore is that considered 

intentional tipping? 

2. If a red team robot has a flip over the trough to dump bags and remains over the trough to 

prevent de-scoreing, can the blue team robot use "vigourous interaction" to gain acces to the 

trough to de-score? 

Re: <G11> Tipping 


in the thread It seems too overpowering you said: 

"If a robot has expanded in an effort to obstruct the field, you are no longer protected by 

while teams try and get past your obstruction. What this means is that you should 

expect and be prepared for vigourous interaction from the team trying to get past you" 

1. If a red team robot has expanded upwards and is blocking the red side of the trough to 

prevent a blue team robot on the blue side of the trough from de-scoring, can the blue team 

robot push the red team robot while attempting to push the bags out of the trough? 

If the red team robot is tipped over in the process of trying to descore is that considered 

intentional tipping? 

There's not enough information provided here to make a definitive decision on whether or not 

tipping would be called. In general, a team who pushes high on an opposing robot, causing the 

robot to tip, can be expected to be called for a violation . 

2. If a red team robot has a flip over the trough to dump bags and remains over the trough to 

prevent de-scoreing, can the blue team robot use "vigourous interaction" to gain acces to the 

Page 127 of 238

trough to de-score? 



It depends if the device meets the criteria set forth in of "expanding horizontally in an 

effort to obstruct the field." If the device is covering an entire trough, it would meet this criteria. 






Here is more information.... 

First Tip video: The blue team robot (left) is attempting to descore from the red teams trough. 

The red team robot (right) attempts to block. The red team robot hooks the trought and tips 

over. The blue team robot does not actually touch the red teams robot. The judges and the 

red team see this as the first tipping by the blue team. 

The blue team won the first round of the finals. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vupCzwkoagk 

Secont Tip video: The blue team robot (left) is again attempting to descore from the red teams 

trough. the red team robot (right attempts to block and is tipped over by the blue team robot. 

The blue team was disqualified and lost the second round of the finals. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oMhP4mCEcU 

WHAT IS INTENTIONAL TIPPING??? 

"Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or Entanglement of 

Robots are not part of the ethos of the VEX Robotics competition and are not allowed. 


damage may occur as a part of normal game play." 

Question 1 - If in the process of trying to score or descore the opposing teams robot is tipped 

over because they are in the path of the scoring or descoring action, is that intentional tipping? 

Further on in "Teams should design their Robots such that they are not tipped over or 

damaged by minor contact." 

Question 2 - What is minor contact? 

Page 128 of 238








Here is more information.... 

First Tip video: The blue team robot (left) is attempting to descore from the red teams trough. 

The red team robot (right) attempts to block. The red team robot hooks the trought and tips 

over. The blue team robot does not actually touch the red teams robot. The judges and the 

red team see this as the first tipping by the blue team. 

The blue team won the first round of the finals. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vupCzwkoagk 

Secont Tip video: The blue team robot (left) is again attempting to descore from the red teams 

trough. the red team robot (right attempts to block and is tipped over by the blue team robot. 

The blue team was disqualified and lost the second round of the finals. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oMhP4mCEcU 

From my vantage point, I do not see any intentional tipping in either video. In general it is 

expected that there will be contact between robots as they compete for position around the 

troughs. Teams should be prepared to withstand this contact. 

Question 1 - If in the process of trying to score or descore the opposing teams robot is tipped 

over because they are in the path of the scoring or descoring action, is that intentional tipping? 

No, this is not intentional tipping. 


Answered: Bump Clarification on scoring 

Answered: Bump Clarification on scoring 


Recently this thread http://www.vexforum.com/showthread.php?t=74770 

was posted about which robot should be removed from the field first and it hasn't been 

answered. 

In the vex skype chat their has been some conjecture as to why this could be ranging from "he 

missed it" to "they have to have a meeting because it isn't something they anticipated coming 

Page 129 of 238

up." 



Can you answer the question posed by therealcedz and if not please explain why? 

Re: Bump Clarification on scoring 


Recently this thread http://www.vexforum.com/showthread.php?t=74770 

was posted about which robot should be removed from the field first and it hasn't been 

answered. 

In the vex skype chat their has been some conjecture as to why this could be ranging from "he 

missed it" to "they have to have a meeting because it isn't something they anticipated coming 

up." 

Can you answer the question posed by therealcedz and if not please explain why? 

The question has now been answered. I apologize for the delay. 




The question has now been answered. I apologize for the delay. 


It's all good thanks for the response. 



It's all good thanks for the response. 





Posted by larhal at 11/16/2012 12:24:57 pm 

Quoting from SG9 


with 


field 





What if my robot is an act of scoring like in the picture , would it be legal ? 

Page 130 of 238





Quoting from SG9 


with 


field 





What if my robot is an act of scoring like in the picture , would it be legal ? 

Yes, this would be legal. You are not intentionally attaching yourself to the field. 

Re: Answered: Clarification on SG9 

Posted by larhal at 11/29/2012 01:39:12 am 

Thank you Karthik . Sorry for the small picture . 

Re: Answered: Clarification on SG9 


Thank you Karthik . Sorry for the small picture . 

You're welcome. Don't worry about the small picture, in this case it clearly illustrated your 

point. 


Answered: Fixing robots during match 

Answered: Fixing robots during match 

Posted by eloveless at 11/16/2012 03:25:25 pm 

If you are on your "home" tile can you fix any problems you have during the match or not? Can 

you do it with or without tools if you can? Also, if you need to manipulate a bean bag b/c it is 

lodged in a wheel or something can you get it out if on the start tile? 

Thank you, 

eloveless 

Re: Fixing robots during match 


If you are on your "home" tile can you fix any problems you have during the match or not? Can 

you do it with or without tools if you can? Also, if you need to manipulate a bean bag b/c it is 

lodged in a wheel or something can you get it out if on the start tile? 

Thank you, 

eloveless 

Before posting in this forum, we urge you to please read the entirety of the VEX Sack Attack 

Page 131 of 238

Game Manual, as it often answers your questions directly. 



In this case, rules and specifically state what type of interaction is allowed. I've 

quoted these rules below, with pertinent sections bolded. 






allowed in 









onto the tile. 



During contact with the Robot, the Drivers or Coaches may not intentionally manipulate or 

modify the position of any Scoring Objects relative to the Robot’s overall system, either by 

direct hand contact or indirect contact via the Robot. (i.e. it is acceptable to change the 

orientation of a Robot that includes Scoring Objects in it as long as the position of the 

elements relative to the Robot is not changed). 










are controlling the Robot via human contact or creating motions that lead to scoring. 



multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the head referee's discretion. 

Page 132 of 238



During the Driver Controlled Period, Drivers and Coaches may handle their own Robot 

as long as the robot has never left the Alliance Starting Tile. The intent of this rule is to allow 

teams to fix Robots which were unable to move at the start of the Match. 



multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the head referee's discretion. 

Note: During the handling specified in And robots may be repositioned, but 

must be returned to a valid starting position as per . 


Answered: Entanglement Question 

Answered: Entanglement Question 

Posted by HarryAinlayRobotics at 11/16/2012 11:24:07 pm 

For the competition our team has designed a robot in which 2 modules that are connected 

together by a series of linked C-bars. We would like to double check with VEX officials if this 

would be allowed. A picture has been attached below to clarify. 

P.S: All the wires are tied down INTO the C-Bars to prevent wire entanglement. 

Re: Entanglement Question 


For the competition our team has designed a robot in which 2 modules that are connected 

together by a series of linked C-bars. We would like to double check with VEX officials if this 

would be allowed. A picture has been attached below to clarify. 

P.S: All the wires are tied down INTO the C-Bars to prevent wire entanglement. 

From what we can see in this picture, this looks to be legal. 


Answered: Anti slip mats 

Answered: Anti slip mats 

Posted by 1136A at 11/17/2012 07:37:07 pm 

Hi, i am using a large amount of the vex anti slip mats on my robot, and was wondering if there 

is a limit to how much you can use? 

:confused: 

Re: Anti slip mats 


Hi, i am using a large amount of the vex anti slip mats on my robot, and was wondering if there 

is a limit to how much you can use? 

Page 133 of 238

:confused: 



There is no limit, provided you haven't violated any other rules in the process. (For example, 

your robot still needs to fit within the 18"x18"x18" size restriction, etc.) 


Answered: Concerning Autonomous Scoring 

Answered: Concerning Autonomous Scoring 

Posted by skater96782 at 11/19/2012 12:57:05 am 

I have been hearing a lot about scores not being counted during autonomous because their 

manipulator is touching the sack(s) i never read anything about it not counting. I know that if 

its being supported by the robot then it doesn't count but if its scored and touching the sack its 

not counted? 

Re: Concerning Autonomous Scoring 


I have been hearing a lot about scores not being counted during autonomous because their 

manipulator is touching the sack(s) i never read anything about it not counting. I know that if 

its being supported by the robot then it doesn't count but if its scored and touching the sack its 

not counted? 

Before posting in this forum, we urge you to please read the entirety of the VEX Sack Attack 

Game Manual, as it often answers your questions directly. 

In this case, the definition of Scored specifically state what type of interaction is allowed. I've 

quoted these rules below, with pertinent sections bolded. 
















Answered: Descoring in Autonomous 

Page 134 of 238

Answered: Descoring in Autonomous 

Posted by SweetMochi at 11/19/2012 06:31:57 pm 



I think it is pretty clear when the "pull-away" test should be used at the end of a match, but if a 

case of partial descoring has occurred at the end of the autonomous period should referees 

perform the "pull-away" test? An example would be a blue robot in contact with a sack scored 

in a red trough at the end of the autonomous period. 

Thanks in advance Karthik. 

Re: Descoring in Autonomous 


I think it is pretty clear when the "pull-away" test should be used at the end of a match, but if a 

case of partial descoring has occurred at the end of the autonomous period should referees 

perform the "pull-away" test? An example would be a blue robot in contact with a sack scored 

in a red trough at the end of the autonomous period. 

Thanks in advance Karthik. 

The "pull-away" test should only be used if it is absolutely necessary to determine support. The 

referees should be extra judicious about using this test at the end of the Autonomous Period. 


Posted by SweetMochi at 11/29/2012 05:32:59 am 

The "pull-away" test should only be used if it is absolutely necessary to determine support. The 

referees should be extra judicious about using this test at the end of the Autonomous Period. 

Alright, thanks for making that clear Karthik! 



Alright, thanks for making that clear Karthik 



Answered: Clearer Definition for Scored 

Answered: Clearer Definition for Scored 


The current definition of scored seems to be insufficient. Although gently pulling the robots 

away from the trough will work for most cases of partial descoring, I can imagine designing a 

robot that ends the match with a specially designed rake touching the far side of the opponent 

trough and some of the sacks inside to the degree that the pull test is required. As the referees 

gently pull the robot away, the rake would descore all the sacks. So some questions regarding 

this situation: 

1. Should there be a gentle push test for some situations? 

2. Should there be a raise-the-arm test for some situations? 

3. Any combination of the mentioned 3 tests? 

Page 135 of 238



Sorry for the vague description but I feel robots can take advantage of how the descore test is 

currently applied. 


Re: Clearer Definition for Scored 


The current definition of scored seems to be insufficient. Although gently pulling the robots 

away from the trough will work for most cases of partial descoring, I can imagine designing a 

robot that ends the match with a specially designed rake touching the far side of the opponent 

trough and some of the sacks inside to the degree that the pull test is required. As the referees 

gently pull the robot away, the rake would descore all the sacks. So some questions regarding 

this situation: 

1. Should there be a gentle push test for some situations? 

2. Should there be a raise-the-arm test for some situations? 

3. Any combination of the mentioned 3 tests? 

Sorry for the vague description but I feel robots can take advantage of how the descore test is 

currently applied. 


In most situations, there is no reason to move any Robots at the end of the Match to determine 

if any Scoring Objects are supported. This test is only applied in the most extreme 

circumstances, where it is absolutely necessary to determine if Scoring Objects are supported. 

When the test is applied, it will be done so in such a way that it disrupts as little of the field as 

possible, and such that teams don't gain an advantage as a result of the test. (i.e Any 

disruptions to the field during the test, will be ignored.) 


Posted by SweetMochi at 11/29/2012 05:32:15 am 

Okay, thanks for the answer as always Karthik! 



Okay, thanks for the answer as always Karthik 



Answered: Ref question on robot touching scored object 

Answered: Ref question on robot touching scored object 

Posted by zamsely at 11/20/2012 06:45:39 pm 

A robot with an opaque bucket dumps a pile of sacks in its trough and time ends with the 

bucket upside down on the pile. The referee gently removes the robot and some of the outer 

sacks slide off. There is no way to know what other sacks might have been touching the inside 

Page 136 of 238

of the bucket. How should it be scored? 

Re: Ref question on robot touching scored object 




A robot with an opaque bucket dumps a pile of sacks in its trough and time ends with the 

bucket upside down on the pile. The referee gently removes the robot and some of the outer 

sacks slide off. There is no way to know what other sacks might have been touching the inside 

of the bucket. How should it be scored? 

Any Sacks which were supported by the Robot will not count. From what has been described, 

it seems that none of the Sacks were supported by the robot in question at the end of the 

match. 


Answered: Ref question on Pinning/Trapping/Entanglement 

Answered: Ref question on Pinning/Trapping/Entanglement 


A robot drives over and parks on another robot's clear lexan shovel, preventing the robot from 

moving. To the referees it looks like the team has tripped a breaker (which maybe it did from 

trying to get unstuck) or otherwise lost communication with the now immobile robot. 

It doesn't quite fit under: 




or: 

Trapping – A Robot is considered to be trapped if an opposing Robot has restricted it into a 


not provided an avenue for escape. 

Would it fall under G11 entanglement as "Intentionally grasping an opponent robot"? 

If it trips a breaker should the offending team be a DQ from the match or is it a warning 

because the temporarily immobilized robot could have guarded against this with 

programming/design/? ? 

Re: Ref question on Pinning/Trapping/Entanglement 


A robot drives over and parks on another robot's clear lexan shovel, preventing the robot from 

moving. To the referees it looks like the team has tripped a breaker (which maybe it did from 

trying to get unstuck) or otherwise lost communication with the now immobile robot. 

It doesn't quite fit under: 




Page 137 of 238



or: 




Would it fall under G11 entanglement as "Intentionally grasping an opponent robot"? 

Driving on top of a robot, immobilizing it and not rectifying the situation would be considered 

intentional entanglement. 

If it trips a breaker should the offending team be a DQ from the match or is it a warning 

because the temporarily immobilized robot could have guarded against this with 

programming/design/? ? 

Whether or not a team trips a breaker is not relevant to this ruling. 


Answered: Potentially damaging components () 

Answered: Potentially damaging components (<R3>) 

Posted by Owen at 11/25/2012 08:07:04 pm 

I am looking for clarification on parts A and B of . 





What constitutes a mechanism which could potentially damage the field or another robot? 

Would a robot with a particularly powerful drive or lift be in violation of this rule? 

Example: A 25:1 four motor lift capable of breaking the trough and a 3:1 torque 6 motor drive 

base which could break another robot if it were not solidly built. 

If there was a question of violating this rule, as in the previous example, would the offending 

team only be disqualified if they actually damaged the field or another robot, or fail inspection 

for having the potential to do so? 

In short, would this robot be disqualified even if it did not damage the field or another robot, 

simply because it could potentially do so if it made an attempt? 

Re: Potentially damaging components (<R3>) 


I am looking for clarification on parts A and B of . 


Page 138 of 238






Would a robot with a particularly powerful drive or lift be in violation of this rule? 

No, absolutely not. This rule is mainly intended to prevent teams from having Robots with 

sharp parts, or parts that could mark up playing field components. 

Re: Answered: Potentially damaging components (<R3>) 


Thank you Karthik for such a clear answer! 

Re: Answered: Potentially damaging components (<R3>) 


Thank you Karthik for such a clear answer 



Answered: VexNet Key Rule 

Answered: VexNet Key Rule 

Posted by NissanskylineN1 at 11/26/2012 08:11:43 pm 

Hello, 

I was reading the competition rules yesterday and I noticed a rule regarding the VexNet key: 

Rule R7JII: 

No metal may be within 2” of the top of the VEXnet key. 

My question is: 

Why? 

AFAIK, the VexNet works using 802.1.1 G Wifi, which is/was used with most WiFi routers, and 

the signal was adequate for a normal house. I also doubt that the signal could be interfered/cut 

off by the metal, as it can go through a normal household wall. 

So, my question is: Why the heck is this rule in place, as the furthest possible distance that 

you can be from your robot is ~25 feet?:confused::confused: 

Re: VexNet Key Rule 


Hello, 

I was reading the competition rules yesterday and I noticed a rule regarding the VexNet key: 

Page 139 of 238

My question is: 

Why? 



AFAIK, the VexNet works using 802.1.1 G Wifi, which is/was used with most WiFi routers, and 

the signal was adequate for a normal house. I also doubt that the signal could be interfered/cut 

off by the metal, as it can go through a normal household wall. 

So, my question is: Why the heck is this rule in place, as the furthest possible distance that 

you can be from your robot is ~25 feet?:confused::confused: 

This rule is in place to minimize the chance of teams inadvertently weakening their own 

VEXnet signal. 

Re: Answered: VexNet Key Rule 

Posted by NissanskylineN1 at 11/29/2012 04:09:55 am 

But its Wifi G... This stuff can go through residential houses. Its a real PITA because it adds 

another issue of mounting the key. Please remove this rule for next year. 



But its Wifi G... This stuff can go through residential houses. Its a real PITA because it adds 

another issue of mounting the key. Please remove this rule for next year. 

The Game Design Committee reviews all rules every year; we've made specific note of this 

concern. 


Posted by NissanskylineN1 at 12/02/2012 02:03:09 pm 

Thank you very much, Karthik. :) 



Thank you very much, Karthik. :) 



Answered: "Losing Autonomous Bonus" Clarification 

Answered: <SG7> "Losing Autonomous Bonus" Clarification 

Posted by olitech at 11/27/2012 05:29:08 am 


during the 

Autonomous Period. Violations of this rule will result in the offending Alliance automatically 

losing the 

Autonomous Bonus and the offending Robot being disabled. 

Lets say that the blue alliance violates SG7 but it scores more in the autonomous period than 

Page 140 of 238



the red alliance. Does the red alliance get awarded the autonomous bonus? Or, is there no 

Autonomous bonus awarded at all? 

Re: <SG7> "Losing Autonomous Bonus" Clarification 


Lets say that the blue alliance violates SG7 but it scores more in the autonomous period than 

the red alliance. Does the red alliance get awarded the autonomous bonus? Or, is there no 

Autonomous bonus awarded at all? 

The opposing alliance is automatically the awarded the Autonomous Bonus, regardless of 

what points were scored by the two alliances. 


Answered: Clarification on c. 

Answered: Clarification on <R7> c. 

Posted by sabydady at 11/28/2012 01:27:41 am 

I have a question regarding the rule , specially section b. and c. quoted below. 






to 

fit these screws 

At a recent tournament in which I was the Head Referee a team was using #8 Nylon screws 

with their respective nut. 

(Similar to these) 

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31FnTgZESiL._SL500_AA300_.jpg 

Other teams were alleging it was illegal to use those screws. 

My final decision was that the screws were legal since rule doesn't explicitly say that 

section's b. statement of "Identical" applies to section c. "Any #4, #6, #8, M2, M2.5, M3 or M4 

Screw". 

My understanding is that Sections a. through j. from rule have no relation and all are 

independent specifications of what can be used aside legal vex equipment. Is that judgement 

correct? 

Thank You. 

Javier Morales 

Puerto Rico Institute of Robotics 

Re: Clarification on <R7> c. 


Page 141 of 238



I have a question regarding the rule , specially section b. and c. quoted below. 

At a recent tournament in which I was the Head Referee a team was using #8 Nylon screws 

with their respective nut. 

(Similar to these) 

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31FnTgZESiL._SL500_AA300_.jpg 

Other teams were alleging it was illegal to use those screws. 

My final decision was that the screws were legal since rule doesn't explicitly say that 

section's b. statement of "Identical" applies to section c. "Any #4, #6, #8, M2, M2.5, M3 or M4 

Screw". 

My understanding is that Sections a. through j. from rule have no relation and all are 

independent specifications of what can be used aside legal vex equipment. Is that judgement 

correct? 

Thank You. 

Javier Morales 

Puerto Rico Institute of Robotics 

Your judgement was correct. Nylon #8 screws would fall under and are legal. Your 

analysis of the situation is perfect. 


Answered: Decorational lexan clarification 

Answered: Decorational lexan clarification 

Posted by cbw1538 at 11/30/2012 12:22:46 am 

The manual specifies that lexan must be cut from a 12"x24" sheet, and also specifies that any 

materials may be used as nonfunctional decorations. 

If we are using lexan as a nonfunctional decoration, which rules takes precedence? I would 

like to have documentation when we go through inspection. 

Thank you. 

Re: Decorational lexan clarification 


The manual specifies that lexan must be cut from a 12"x24" sheet, and also specifies that any 

materials may be used as nonfunctional decorations. 

If we are using lexan as a nonfunctional decoration, which rules takes precedence? I would 

like to have documentation when we go through inspection. 

Thank you. 

Page 142 of 238



Lexan used as a non functional decoration will not count towards your 12"x24" allotment. 


Answered: Robots are allowed the following additional “non-VEX” components: 

Answered: <R7> Robots are allowed the following additional “non-VEX” components: 

Posted by fretless_kb at 12/04/2012 01:25:32 pm 

Karthik, 

I would lke to ensure this rule especially the item ii concerning the 2" restriction only applies if 

a USB extension cable is used. I have interpreted this to mean a team is allowed to have 

metal closer than 2" if the Vexnet Key is mounted in the Cortex. is that correct? Our robot 

design this year has a metal plate which overhangs the cortex to deflect falling sacks from 

hitting the cortex, it is closer than 2" to the Key, but the key is mounted directly in the Cortex. I 

presume this is still a legal configuration? 

Cheers Kb 


key. 

The key must be mounted in the following manner. (See the below image for reference) 

i. The VEXnet key must be mounted such that no metal is touching the key above the 

VEXnet logo. 


Re: <R7> Robots are allowed the following additional “non-VEX” components: 


Karthik, 

I would lke to ensure this rule especially the item ii concerning the 2" restriction only applies if 

a USB extension cable is used. I have interpreted this to mean a team is allowed to have 

metal closer than 2" if the Vexnet Key is mounted in the Cortex. is that correct? Our robot 

design this year has a metal plate which overhangs the cortex to deflect falling sacks from 

hitting the cortex, it is closer than 2" to the Key, but the key is mounted directly in the Cortex. I 

presume this is still a legal configuration? 

Cheers Kb 


key. 





Page 143 of 238



Yes, this space restriction only applies when remote mounting the VEXnet key. However, we 

do recommend that you avoid having metal in very close proximity to your VEXney key in all 

cases. 

Re: Answered: <R7> Robots are allowed the following additional “non-VEX” components: 

Posted by fretless_kb at 12/05/2012 05:35:47 am 

I understand but to date we have had pretty good luck with linking as long as we don't run the 

Vex Keys too long 10-15 minutes and then swap them seems to work for us during practice. 

Thanks for the prompt reply. 

Kb 

Re: Answered: <R7> Robots are allowed the following additional “non-VEX” components: 


I understand but to date we have had pretty good luck with linking as long as we don't run the 

Vex Keys too long 10-15 minutes and then swap them seems to work for us during practice. 

Thanks for the prompt reply. 

Kb 



Answered: Lexan Thickness Question 

Answered: <R7f> Lexan Thickness Question 







I wanted a straight answer so I am asking here. 

From my understanding, we are allowed to use any thickness of Polycarbonate, as long as it is 

cut from a single 12"x24" sheet. 

So, it is legal to use lexan thicker than the specified '0.063"'? i.e. 0.83"? 


Re: <R7f> Lexan Thickness Question 


I wanted a straight answer so I am asking here. 

From my understanding, we are allowed to use any thickness of Polycarbonate, as long as it is 

Page 144 of 238

cut from a single 12"x24" sheet. 



So, it is legal to use lexan thicker than the specified '0.063"'? i.e. 0.83"? 


Please be sure to read the manual thoroughly before posting any questions in this forum. The 

answer to your question is spelled out exactly in the rule you quoted. To make things clear, I've 

re-quoted the rule and bolded the pertinent text. 




0.83" lexan is clearly thicker than 0.063" lexan, thus it would be illegal. 

Re: Answered: <R7f> Lexan Thickness Question 


http://www.vexforum.com/showthread.php?t=74681&highlight=lexan#2 

In that thread you said: 

You are allowed to use different thickness of polycarbonate, however, you are still limited to 

12"x24". For example, if you use .03 material, this does not entitle you to use twice as much. 

So I am confused. From reading that thread it seems like we are allowed to use any thickness 

of polycarbonate. 

Oh, I was talking about the 0.083" lexan I saw at Lowes. I forgot to add the 0. 



http://www.vexforum.com/showthread.php?t=74681&highlight=lexan#2 

In that thread you said: 

So I am confused. From reading that thread it seems like we are allowed to use any thickness 

of polycarbonate. 

Oh, I was talking about the 0.083" lexan I saw at Lowes. I forgot to add the 0. 

0.030 is less than 0.063 

0.083 (and 0.83) is greater than 0.063 

I will quote the rule one final time. 



Page 145 of 238




You can use any thickness of lexan, as long as it's thinner or equal to 0.063" 

As said earlier, please read the manual (and past Q&A entries) very carefully before posting 

questions in this forum. 


Posted by Jesse323Z at 12/06/2012 02:16:05 am 

Alright, understood. 

Thank you Karthik. 



Alright, understood. 




Answered: Painting Encoders 

Answered: Painting Encoders 

Posted by androb4 at 12/05/2012 03:08:23 am 

A simple question. Can we paint the encoders?? At least just the red parts. It is 

nonfunctional..sort of. 

Thanks 

Re: Painting Encoders 


A simple question. Can we paint the encoders?? At least just the red parts. It is 

nonfunctional..sort of. 

If the modification is entirely non-functional (as it appears to be), this would be legal. However 

the "sort of" in your question gives me pause. If inspectors at your event determine there to be 

functional gain from the painting, they would not be legal for competition use. 


Answered: Crossing Half of Field in Auton 

Answered: Crossing Half of Field in Auton 

Posted by Kyub at 12/05/2012 07:23:47 pm 

Is it that your whole robot needs to pass the plane of the troughs to be DQ'd, or just some of 

your robot? Sorry for the badly worded question and title. 

Re: Crossing Half of Field in Auton 

Page 146 of 238




Is it that your whole robot needs to pass the plane of the troughs to be DQ'd, or just some of 

your robot? Sorry for the badly worded question and title. 

We ask you to please carefully read the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual before posting any 

questions in this forum. There are no rules against crossing the field during the Autonomous 

Period. The only restriction is against breaking the plane of either of your opponent's Alliance 

Starting Tiles. This can be seen in rule , quoted below. 


during the Autonomous Period. Violations of this rule will result in the offending Alliance 

automatically losing the Autonomous Bonus and the offending Robot being disabled. 

Re: Answered: Crossing Half of Field in Auton 

Posted by Kyub at 12/07/2012 07:33:37 pm 

Thank you Karthik. I misunderstood the manual. Next time, I'll read it more carefully. :D 

Re: Answered: Crossing Half of Field in Auton 


Thank you Karthik. I misunderstood the manual. Next time, I'll read it more carefully. :D 



Answered: RSC3 & PSC3 Clarification 

Answered: RSC3 & PSC3 Clarification 

Posted by Legotycoon at 12/05/2012 07:34:10 pm 

Hi, according to the above mentioned rules: 

Robot Skills Match Loads may be introduced on any Alliance Starting Tile. 

And, 

Programming Skills Match Loads may be introduced on any Alliance Starting Tile. 

Is it legal to place the Skills Match Loads in/on a Robot that is within the Alliance Starting Tile? 

Or does this mean that the Skills Match Loads are required to be placed exclusively on the 

Alliance Starting Tile? 

Thank you for your time! 

Re: RSC3 & PSC3 Clarification 


Is it legal to place the Skills Match Loads in/on a Robot that is within the Alliance Starting Tile? 

Yes, this is legal and expected. 

Page 147 of 238

Re: Answered: RSC3 & PSC3 Clarification 

Posted by Legotycoon at 12/09/2012 02:13:03 pm 

That's what I thought. 

THanks Karthik! :D 

Re: Answered: RSC3 & PSC3 Clarification 


That's what I thought. 

THanks Karthik! :D 





Answered: High School Competing in the College Level 

Answered: High School Competing in the College Level 

Posted by tutman96 at 12/07/2012 07:13:01 pm 

I was wondering if I was in high school, could I compete in the college level competition. I don't 

see any rules in the manual that prevent this only that a driver must be a member of a 

post-secondary school. 

Re: High School Competing in the College Level 


I was wondering if I was in high school, could I compete in the college level competition. I don't 

see any rules in the manual that prevent this only that a driver must be a member of a 

post-secondary school. 

The only restrictions in the College Challenge are upon the Drivers. A high school student is 

permitted to be a non driving member of a VRCC team. 

6. Each Robot is still only allowed up to two (2) operators and one (1) coach. 

a. Drivers MUST be post-secondary school students. 

i. Any student enrolled in a post-secondary school is eligible to be a driver. 

ii. There are no restrictions on who can be a Coach in the VRC College Challenge. 

iii. Professionals not enrolled in post-secondary education are also NOT eligible to be 

a driver. (This is the “College Challenge”). 



So if the driver was taking college classes, would they be considered a college student? 



So if the driver was taking college classes, would they be considered a college student? 


Page 148 of 238



Thus, if someone is enrolled at a post-secondary school (i.e. taking classes, registered, has a 

student card..) they are eligible to be a driver. 


Answered: Skills Challenges - Pre-Load and Match-Load Quantities 

Answered: Skills Challenges - Pre-Load and Match-Load Quantities 

Posted by SlimBoJones at 12/09/2012 11:47:34 pm 

We actually know the answer to the question, as we feel they are quite clear in the rules. We 

are asking because it seems to be a surprisingly common misconception among some teams 

(including members of our own team at one time). Having them answered directly here will 

provide a useful point of clarification for us to pass along, and to protect the integrity of teams 

qualifying for the World Championship via Skills Challenges. 

The question relates to the following definitions in both the Robot and Programming Skills 

Challenge rules: 

Robot/Programming Skills Match Loads – The five (5) Sacks available to be loaded at 

any time during a Robot/Programming Skills Match. Of these Robot/Programming Skills Match 

Loads, only one (1) Sack may be used as a Robot/Programming Skills Preload. 

Robot/Programming Skills Preload – The one (1) Sack each team may load into their 

Robot prior to each Robot/Programming Skills Match. An unused Robot/Programming Skills 

Preload becomes a Robot/Programming Skills Match Load. 

Sequence of events: 

A Skills Challenge participant begins in a Red Starting Alliance Tile 

They human load and score 5 sacks for Match Loads on the Red Alliance side 

The robot crosses over to the Blue side of the field and drives into a Blue Alliance Starting Tile 

The participant claims they can now Match Load an additional 5 sacks because they are "on 

both the Red and Blue alliance" during the Skills Challenge, and should have access to a 2nd 

set of Match Loads on the Blue Alliance side 

Question: 

Does a Skills Challenge participant have access to two (2) sets of Match-Loads, a set for each 

of the Red and Blue alliance sides of the field? 

Re: Skills Challenges - Pre-Load and Match-Load Quantities 

Posted by Totally Generic Name at 12/10/2012 12:48:03 am 

I figured this question would be in the Q&A, but I might be able to answer. 

There are 5 match loads, one of which is a preload. "Of these Robot/Programming Skills 

Match Loads, only one (1) Sack may be used as a Robot/Programming Skills Preload." So 

basically, it's only 4+1 sacks. 

Page 149 of 238



From what I understand, all of the square are of your "alliance", because you are counted as 

both red and blue or whatever reason - we could realign on any square last year, and I don't 

think that's changed. So, you can load the 5 match loads on any tile if you want. However, 

each team gets the 5 match loads. There is only one team, so there are 5 match loads in total, 

but they can be introduced in any order on any tile. 


Posted by Rick TYler at 12/10/2012 12:53:37 am 

The thread was moved out of Q&A because it is not a question. 


Posted by SlimBoJones at 12/10/2012 05:14:16 am 

The question is stated at the end: 

Question: 

Does a Skills Challenge participant have access to two (2) sets of Match-Loads and 

Pre-Loads, a set for each of the Red and Blue alliance sides of the field? 

I've edited the sequence of events to reflect the "4+1" correction by Totally Generic Name 

above. I've edited the question to try and make it more clear. 

The question still stands, and I'd still like an official answer. 

I have bumped into teams who thought that there are 5 sacks available on BOTH alliance 

sides of the field. They would human load 5 on the starting side, score them, cross the field to 

the other side, and human load 5 more. Thus human loading a total of 10 sacks into the robot. 

Their rationale being that you are both Red and Blue alliance members during skills challenge, 

and should get a complete set of match-loads and pre-loads on each side of the field as well. 

I know this is definitely not the case, but would like to see a Q&A response to quash this 

mis-interpretation of the rules quickly. 


Posted by Vex Mundi at 12/10/2012 06:54:22 am 

You are not both red and blue alliances. You cannot park on the colour you did not start on 

and you cannot reposition on the colour you did not start on. Nowhere in the robot skills rules 

or the programming skills rules does it say that you are "both alliances". The colour of tiles and 

goals is ignored only for the purposes of scoring sacks and driver control loading. 

The purpose of the Q+A is to answer questions that don't yet have clear answers, not to 

reiterate things that are spelled out in the rules. Questions that can be answered by reading 

the manual clutter the Q+A and make it difficult for people who need to keep up with rules 

changes to do so. 


Page 150 of 238

Posted by SlimBoJones at 12/10/2012 01:36:35 pm 



The purpose of the Q+A is to answer questions that don't yet have clear answers, not to 

reiterate things that are spelled out in the rules. Questions that can be answered by reading 

the manual clutter the Q+A and make it difficult for people who need to keep up with rules 

changes to do so. 

Okay, no offense, but all I wanted was a simple, OFFICIAL "No" response on the Q&A. 

It would've taken less time than it did to mysteriously move the thread out of the Q&A to here. 

That way I could've e-mailed teams a clear response from an official source. I'm not an 

authoritative figure, and they aren't going to listen to me. I'm getting some feedback from 

participants at my event who thought the Skills Challenges were poorly run due to a 

misunderstanding of this rule, and I'm trying to say we actually got it right. We denied someone 

a World qualifying spot because of this, and it's making me, my event and VEX as a whole 

look bad. 

Yes, the rules are clear, but people make up, misinterpret or selectively read rules all the time, 

and this is an issue that I've overheard teams misinterpret more than once. 

What I didn't want was people replying, adding their own two cents, sidetracking the original 

question with irrelevant information, and selectively reading the original post. 

Now we're cluttering the rest of the VEX forums with noise, while the ACTUAL Q&A remains 

populated with questions even more asinine than this one. 

Look, what I don't want is anyone's team knocked out by another team who shows up at an 

event where the Skills Challenge person doesn't have the best handle on the rules. Let's say 

the field is setup with match loads on both sides, so teams have a choice on which side they 

start on, Red or Blue. The next thing you know, a team ends up loading 5 sacks on each side 

of the field, puts up a Worlds qualifying score with those extra illegal sacks and you don't catch 

it until after the event is over... or you don't catch it at all. 

What do you do then? 

I almost saw it happen at my own event, but thankfully someone caught it. The team wasn't 

being malicious, they just misinterpreted the rules. We told the team, DQ'ed their big score, 

and they begrudgingly and unsuccessfully continued to try to qualify without using the illegal 

extra sacks. 

My event was two days ago, and I'm trying to wrap everything up so I can get back to teaching 

and catch up on the marking that's piled up from organizing and running a VEX event. I want to 

close the book on this ASAP. 

In addition, maybe I can save some other VEX teams and event partners some potential grief, 

and all it takes is a simple "No." 

Page 151 of 238

Instead, I get trolled. 

Thanks! 





Question: 

Does a Skills Challenge participant have access to two (2) sets of Match-Loads, a set for each 

of the Red and Blue alliance sides of the field? 

Your interpretation is 100% correct. Teams only have access to one (1) set of Match-Loads 

during a given Skills Challenge run. 


Answered: League elimination opt-out? 

Answered: League elimination opt-out? 

Posted by bb_csm at 12/10/2012 03:46:52 am 

There seems to be differing opinions about the practice of the top ranked team in a league 

choosing to opt-out of elimination rounds. I can see why teams would want to do this, and my 

opinion is that it is the courteous thing to do since they have already earned a world 

championship spot. Is this response in the link below still the official position of the RECF? Or 

would opting out be perceived negatively in any way? 

http://www.vexforum.com/showthread.php?t=63109&highlight=league 

Thank you. 

Re: League elimination opt-out? 


There seems to be differing opinions about the practice of the top ranked team in a league 

choosing to opt-out of elimination rounds. I can see why teams would want to do this, and my 

opinion is that it is the courteous thing to do since they have already earned a world 

championship spot. Is this response in the link below still the official position of the RECF? Or 

would opting out be perceived negatively in any way? 

http://www.vexforum.com/showthread.php?t=63109&highlight=league 

Thank you. 

For a top ranked team in a league to earn a qualifying spot, they must compete in the 

elimination rounds. Any team who withdraws from the elimination rounds is no longer eligible 

to earn a World Championship qualifying spot. 

Re: Answered: League elimination opt-out? 


Thank you. I had thought it was an acceptable practice because of the earlier response, so I'm 

glad I asked. Since this is the official ruling, it will certainly be enforced in our league. 

Re: Answered: League elimination opt-out? 


Thank you. I had thought it was an acceptable practice because of the earlier response, so I'm 

Page 152 of 238



glad I asked. Since this is the official ruling, it will certainly be enforced in our league. 



Answered: Parking 

Answered: Parking 

Posted by Titan Robotics at 12/10/2012 09:45:22 pm 

Does a robot have to leave their starting tile to receive the parking bonus, or can they sit 

unmoving for the whole time and get the ten point bonus. 

Re: Parking 


Does a robot have to leave their starting tile to receive the parking bonus, or can they sit 

unmoving for the whole time and get the ten point bonus. 

A robot does not need leave the tile to earn the Parking bonus in a normal Match. However, to 

earn the Robot Skills Parking bonus or the Programming Skills Parking bonus, they must leave 

the tile at some point during the match. 


Tiles at the end of the Match. 

Robot Skills Parked – A robot is considered to be Robot Skills Parked if it is touching one of its 

own Alliance Starting Tiles at the end of the Match, and has left the Alliance Starting Tile 

during the Robot Skills Match. 

Programming Skills Parked – A robot is considered to be Programming Skills Parked if it is 

touching one of its own Alliance Starting Tiles at the end of the Match, and has left the Alliance 

Starting Tile during the Programming Skills Match. 


Answered: Lexan by area or can you really only use one sheet? 

Answered: Lexan by area or can you really only use one sheet? 

Posted by Android4life at 12/11/2012 01:41:36 am 

Basically can you use 288 sq inches or only a 12x24 sheet? 

Re: Lexan by area or can you really only use one sheet? 


Basically can you use 288 sq inches or only a 12x24 sheet? 

In advance of posting in this forum, please thoroughly read the Game Manual and the Q&A 

usage guidelines, specifically the part about quoting the specific rule related to your question. 




Page 153 of 238




This means that the pieces "plastic" on your robot must be able to be reassembled into a sheet 

of "plastic" that is no larger than 12"x24". For example, using a 1"x36" strip of lexan would be 

illegal, as it could not be obtained from a single 12"x24" sheet. 


Answered: Question about polycarbonate/non functional design etc 

Answered: Question about polycarbonate/non functional design etc 


Hi, following previous posts on polycarbonate/lexan, if it can be used as non functional 

decoration, does it have limits, and also does it matter the thickness 

Thanks In Advance 

Re: Question about polycarbonate/non functional design etc 


Hi, following previous posts on polycarbonate/lexan, if it can be used as non functional 

decoration, does it have limits, and also does it matter the thickness 

Thanks In Advance 

There are no specific limits on non functional decorations, provided the item remains non 

functional. 

Re: Answered: Question about polycarbonate/non functional design etc 


Thank you ! 

greatly appreciated 

Re: Answered: Question about polycarbonate/non functional design etc 


Thank you ! 

greatly appreciated 




Answered: Clarification on <R7> 


Hi Karthik, we have a question about f 

Non shattering plastic from the following list; polycarbonate, acetel monopolymer (Delrin), 



Page 154 of 238



It doesn't say anything about plexiglass. Is it legal? It is the only plastic we can get really 

cheap. 

Thanks! 

Robert 

Re: Clarification on <R7> 


Hi Karthik, we have a question about f 

It doesn't say anything about plexiglass. Is it legal? It is the only plastic we can get really 

cheap. 

Thanks! 

Robert 

No, plexiglass is not legal. 


Posted by banditofernando at 12/14/2012 03:11:55 am 

No, plexiglass is not legal. 

May I ask why it is not legal??? 

And thank you! 

~Banditofernando 


Answered: scoring a pile covered by a bucket 

Answered: scoring a pile covered by a bucket 


If a team with an opaque bucket dumps a load of sacks and leaves the bucket for the rest of 

the match on the pile to prevent descoring, how should referees decide which sacks were 

touching the inside of the bucket after the refs remove the robot and let any supported sacks 

fall? 

Re: scoring a pile covered by a bucket 


If a team with an opaque bucket dumps a load of sacks and leaves the bucket for the rest of 

the match on the pile to prevent descoring, how should referees decide which sacks were 

touching the inside of the bucket after the refs remove the robot and let any supported sacks 

fall? 

Page 155 of 238



In a situation as described above, the referees will do their best to determine which sacks were 

touching the inside of the bucket. However, since the bucket is opaque, it will be very difficult 

for them to make the determination. We're instructing the referees to err on the side of caution, 

and if any assumptions have to be made, to assume that sacks are most likely touching the 

sides of the bucket. 

My advice to all teams. If you're going to use a bucket as described as above, make sure it's 

easy for the referees to see inside of it. 




Posted by drdanielfc at 12/19/2012 05:27:04 pm 

Would it be legal to use parts clearly outside of their intended purpose? 

For example, could extension wires be used as the rope in a pulley system? 

Regards, 

Dan 



Would it be legal to use parts clearly outside of their intended purpose? 

It is legal to use VRC legal parts for any purpose within the rules. However, trying to VEX parts 

outside their intended purpose in an effort to make them legal according to is not legal. 

i.e Don't try and use VEX packaging on a VRC robot. 





against the intent of the rule (i.e. please don’t try using VEX apparel, competition 

support materials, packaging or other non-robot products on a VEX Robotics Competition 

Robot). 

For example, could extension wires be used as the rope in a pulley system? 

This would be legal. 


Answered: Motor Repair 

Answered: Motor Repair 


The pins on the end of one of our 2-wire motors snapped off. Would it be legal to strip the wire, 

attach it directly to a stripped motor controller wire, and wrap it up in electrical tape? As per the 

Page 156 of 238



manual repairs are allowed but it doesn't seem explicit as to whether or not we could go 

straight into a motor controller like that. We have no 2-wire extension cables so there would be 

no way for us to repair it otherwise. 

The functionality would not be modified and the length would be just a little shorter than if we'd 

plugged the motor into the motor controller. 

Seems the answer would be 'yes' but would just like clarification. 

Re: Motor Repair 


The pins on the end of one of our 2-wire motors snapped off. Would it be legal to strip the wire, 

attach it directly to a stripped motor controller wire, and wrap it up in electrical tape? As per the 

manual repairs are allowed but it doesn't seem explicit as to whether or not we could go 

straight into a motor controller like that. We have no 2-wire extension cables so there would be 

no way for us to repair it otherwise. 

The functionality would not be modified and the length would be just a little shorter than if we'd 

plugged the motor into the motor controller. 

Seems the answer would be 'yes' but would just like clarification. 

This would be legal if you were to replace the end of the wire with the end of another VEX 

legal cable. However, directly connecting/splicing the motor to the speed controller would not 

be legal. 

Please see this previous Q&A entry for more details. 




This would be legal if you were to replace the end of the wire with the end of another VEX 

legal cable. However, directly connecting/splicing the motor to the speed controller would not 

be legal. 

May I ask what the logic is for not allowing this? 

I can't imagine how anyone could possibly cheat like this. 

Your original post also explicitly stated that this was legal and now we've also ruined a motor 

controller plug by splicing it. 

~Dan 



May I ask what the logic is for not allowing this? 

Page 157 of 238



There are a myriad of safety issues involved with directly splicing a motor to a motor controller. 


Answered: Regarding screws 

Answered: Regarding screws 

Posted by Android4life at 12/22/2012 11:06:08 pm 

The rule states 

Any #4, #6, #8, M2, M2.5, M3, or M4 screw up to 2" long, and any commercially available nut 


Now you list the thread of the screw we can use... the question is can we use any screw head 

we want? Philips, flat head, thumbscrew etc? And how is the length measured? Because in 

some screws like pan heads the length does not include the head of the screw.. 

Also the way you worded this was that only the nut needs to be commercially available is this 

correct? For example the screw could be discontinued? 

Re: Regarding screws 


The rule states 

Any #4, #6, #8, M2, M2.5, M3, or M4 screw up to 2" long, and any commercially available nut 


Now you list the thread of the screw we can use... the question is can we use any screw head 

we want? Philips, flat head, thumbscrew etc? 

Yes, you may use any screw head of your choice. 

And how is the length measured? Because in some screws like pan heads the length does 

not include the head of the screw.. 

Screw length will be measured without measuring the length of the screw head. 

Also the way you worded this was that only the nut needs to be commercially available is this 

correct? For example the screw could be discontinued? 

Both the screw and the nut should be commercially available. We do not want teams custom 

manufacturing fasteners. (Although, with the current rules as well as restrictions on materials, 

making a useful fastener would be quite difficult.) 


Yes, you may use any screw head of your choice. 

Page 158 of 238



Screw length will be measured without measuring the length of the screw head. 

Both the screw and the nut should be commercially available. We do not want teams custom 

manufacturing fasteners. (Although, with the current rules as well as restrictions on materials, 

making a useful fastener would be quite difficult.) 

So you admit it would be possible to make a custom fastener.. and be legal.? 

As the way its worded only the nut needs to be commercially available.. 

So one could use steel stock and machine it into a screw.. 

Because the steel would not be attached to the robot until it got machined.. after the machining 

the steel would legally be considered a screw.. correct? So one would not be using any illegal 

materials..? 

Or if that was not legal one could have a screw machined and purchase said screw from the 

person who made it.. 

Thus the screw was sold as a screw.. 

Re: Answered: Regarding screws 


So you admit it would be possible to make a custom fastener.. and be legal.? 

As the way its worded only the nut needs to be commercially available.. 

As per my previous post, both the screw and the nut must be commercially available. 

So one could use steel stock and machine it into a screw.. 

Steel stock is not legal for use in the VEX Robotics Competition 

Because the steel would not be attached to the robot until it got machined.. after the machining 

the steel would legally be considered a screw.. correct? So one would not be using any illegal 

materials..? 

No, this interpretation is completely incorrect, and extremely counter-intuitive. Each year I 

hope to never have to point this rule on this forum, however: 


common sense always applies in the VEX Robotics Competition. 

Page 159 of 238



Or if that was not legal one could have a screw machined and purchase said screw from the 

person who made it.. 

Thus the screw was sold as a screw.. 

Commercially available means available at stores, not bought from a random individual. Once 

again: 




Answered: Renamed: Using a Sack to fit a Robot within the sizing box 

Answered: Renamed: Using a Sack to fit a Robot within the sizing box 

Posted by Torqueative at 12/25/2012 07:13:28 am 

Hi 

Before the start of a match, we are allowed one sack on the robot as a pre-load, and we must 

be within 18 " cubed size. 

When we are inspected for size, are we allowed to have the one pre-load sack in the intake to 

help keep the arm down and within 18 " cubed size? Thus we would be in the same 

configuration for inspection as we were for pre-start of a match. 

Thanks, Paul 

Edit: Sorry the title is not very informative. Please re-title as you see fit. 

Re: Question in form of a question 


Hi 

Before the start of a match, we are allowed one sack on the robot as a pre-load, and we must 

be within 18 " cubed size. 

When we are inspected for size, are we allowed to have the one pre-load sack in the intake to 

help keep the arm down and within 18 " cubed size? Thus we would be in the same 

configuration for inspection as we were for pre-start of a match. 

Thanks, Paul 

Edit: Sorry the title is not very informative. Please re-title as you see fit. 

No, this would not be allowed. The Robot must be self constrained to fit within the sizing box. 


Page 160 of 238

Answered: Ambiguity in Autonomous Scoring 

Answered: Ambiguity in Autonomous Scoring 

Posted by RampantFang at 12/25/2012 07:30:30 am 

Hello Karthik! 



This year's game is different from any other VRC game in that not all game objects are visible 

when they are scored. With robots becoming more and more efficient as the World 

Championships approaches and autonomous programs getting more complex, how will 

referees count large numbers of sacks scored in troughs after the 15 sec autonomous period? 

I know that most refs at the end of a match have to "sort" through all the scored sacks to get 

an official final score. Will this be the procedure for determining the autonomous bonus 

winner? (If the question has been posed/answered before, I apologize) 

Thanks for doing what you've been doing. 

Re: Ambiguity in Autonomous Scoring 


Hello Karthik! 

This year's game is different from any other VRC game in that not all game objects are visible 

when they are scored. With robots becoming more and more efficient as the World 

Championships approaches and autonomous programs getting more complex, how will 

referees count large numbers of sacks scored in troughs after the 15 sec autonomous period? 

I know that most refs at the end of a match have to "sort" through all the scored sacks to get 

an official final score. Will this be the procedure for determining the autonomous bonus 

winner? (If the question has been posed/answered before, I apologize) 

Thanks for doing what you've been doing. 

Referees will try and determine the Autonomous winner in the most efficient and accurate way 

possible. Since an exact score is not required, in most cases this can be done very quickly. 

However, there is the possibility of situations arising where the referees will have to pause play 

for a few seconds before Driver Control Mode, to perform a full count. 


Answered: Lexan as non functional decoration 

Answered: Lexan as non functional decoration 


I am looking for an official answer regarding the use of Lexan as a non functional decoration. 

In the past you have indicated that "If an inspector determines that something on a robot is 

functional, it is up to the team to prove that it is non functional. The lead inspector at the event 

has the final decision on the matter." 

I have seen robots which have "wrapped" their robots in Lexan and other non Vex materials. 

It is my belief that ANY use of materials in this fashion has a functional purpose as it would do 

Page 161 of 238



the following: 

Prevent intentional or non-intentional intrusion of other robots thus preventing damage 

(disconnecting wires would be one example) 

Prevent intrusion of game pieces thus preventing damage to the robot (sacks falling onto 

gears or chains would be one example) 

I have also seen that "Any decoration which interacts with a game piece (even a painted 

surface) would be considered functional, hence illegal". I fail to see how the Lexan would NOT 

come into contact with game pieces as some point during a competition. For that reason I 

would conclude that Lexan which wraps the robot would be functional (or should be included in 

the 12"x24" count. 

We would like to wrap our robot in .03 Lexan and use the Lexan as a platform for recognizing 

our sponsors and to identify our team and our school. We believe that we can properly 

secure all of our wires with zip ties and we can protect our gears and chains with guards thus 

arguing that it is "non functional". 

An official response would be much appreciated. 

Happy New Year as well! 

Re: Lexan as non functional decoration 


We would like to wrap our robot in .03 Lexan and use the Lexan as a platform for recognizing 

our sponsors and to identify our team and our school. We believe that we can properly 

secure all of our wires with zip ties and we can protect our gears and chains with guards thus 

arguing that it is "non functional". 

From the given description, this sounds like a legal non-functional direction. However, the final 

determination will be left of the inspectors at your event, who can examine the robot in detail. 


Answered: Clarification 



In my past regional the judges were not allowing robots to play defense on other robots. In 

other words they did not even let you touch the opposing alliance because if not you would be 

disqualified. I was just wondering if it is allowed to play defense because I know it has been 

allowed since the beginning of Vex history. For example push a robot out of the way if they are 

blocking your path to your through or if they are covering their trough to push them so you 

could descore their sacks. 

I believe they are getting confused with G6 which states: 

Drivers and Coaches are prohibited from making intentional contact with any Scoring 

Object, Field Element or Robots during a Match, with the exception of the contact specified in 

Page 162 of 238



, and . Any intentional contact will result in a Disqualification. 

Please clarify and thank you. 

Re: Clarification 


I was just wondering if it is allowed to play defense because I know it has been allowed since 

the beginning of Vex history. For example push a robot out of the way if they are blocking your 

path to your through or if they are covering their trough to push them so you could descore 

their sacks. 

Both of the strategies that you have described are legal, expected and encouraged, as long as 

no other VEX Sack Attack Rules are violated in the process. 

Re: Answered: Clarification 


Ok thank you Karthik!! 

Re: Answered: Clarification 


Ok thank you Karthik 



Answered: Referee Disputes over Defensive Play 

Answered: Referee Disputes over Defensive Play 


Related to this post: 





ruled to be intentional or egregious, the offending team may be disqualified from that Match. 

Repeated offenses could result in a team being Disqualified from the remainder of the 

competition. 





a.Robots which have expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field will undergo even 



i.Furthermore, teams that undertake this type of obstructive strategy would not be 

protected by . e.g. There is no penalty for pinning a “wall-bot” 

All teams are responsible for the actions of their Robots. This goes for teams who are driving 

recklessly and potentially causing damage, but also goes for teams who drive around with a 

Page 163 of 238



small wheel base and arm extended. Teams should design their Robots such that they are not 

tipped over or damaged by minor contact. 

Referees in my region have also had misconceptions about defense. Several teams in my 

region have been using defensive strategies (blocking, occasional pushing, nothing too 

serious), and referees have threatened to disqualify teams for these actions, which are clearly 

legal under the rules. When questioned about this, the referees answered that "defensive 

strategies are against the ethos of the competition." I believe referees in our region have 

gotten the second part of confused with the rule's opening statement. 

Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or Entanglement of Robots 

are not part of the ethos of the VEX Robotics Competition and are not allowed. 





It seems as though the refs took the bolded section in the second quote and linked it to the 

bolded section in the first quote, and because of this they believe that defense is against the 

rules and should not be allowed. I have two questions about this: 

1. Am I incorrect in assuming that defensive play is legal in the VRC, and in reality, teams can 

be disqualified for playing defense, even when the opposing robot has not been damaged or 

tipped over? 

2. If the answer to the first question is "no," and defensive play is indeed legal, then what can 

be done to more accurately explain this rule to referees, so that errors in their interpretation of 

the rules do not effect the outcome of a tournament? 

Re: Referee Disputes over Defensive Play 


1. Am I incorrect in assuming that defensive play is legal in the VRC, and in reality, teams can 

be disqualified for playing defense, even when the opposing robot has not been damaged or 

tipped over? 

Defensive play is legal, provided that no rules are violated in the process. Blocking, pushing, 

etc. are expected parts of game play. 

2. If the answer to the first question is "no," and defensive play is indeed legal, then what can 

be done to more accurately explain this rule to referees, so that errors in their interpretation of 

the rules do not effect the outcome of a tournament? 

If you feel a referee is incorrectly applying the rules, you can do the following. 

1. Let the Head Referee know your concern 

2. Show the Head Referee the specific rule and/or Q&A entry in question 

Page 164 of 238



If you and the referee do not agree, you can escalate your concern to the Event Partner or the 

RECF representative at the event. 

Re: Answered: Referee Disputes over Defensive Play 


Alright, thanks Karthik! 

Re: Answered: Referee Disputes over Defensive Play 


Alright, thanks Karthik 



Answered: Non-Functional Decoration: Lexan (thickness) 

Answered: Non-Functional Decoration: Lexan (thickness) 


Hi, just a quicky, could we use thicker sheets of lexan plastic for non-functional decoration 

(thicker than regulation) 

Thanks In Advance :D 

Re: Non-Functional Decoration: Lexan (thickness) 


Hi, just a quicky, could we use thicker sheets of lexan plastic for non-functional decoration 

(thicker than regulation) 

Thanks In Advance :D 

Yes, this would be legal, provided that the plastic remains non-functional. 



Yes, this would be legal, provided that the plastic remains non-functional. 

Thank You, i thought it would be legal 

thanks 

Liam Grazier 



Thank You, i thought it would be legal 


Page 165 of 238


Answered: Flashlight usage 

Answered: Flashlight usage 




Would using 18 flashlights on a robot with the intention of blinding the opposing alliance be 

acceptable? 

And are teams required to wear clear safety glasses or could they be tinted? 

I am assuming this would be a no on the flashlights but I thought I would ask anyways.. 


Re: Flashlight usage 


Would using 18 flashlights on a robot with the intention of blinding the opposing alliance be 

acceptable? 

And are teams required to wear clear safety glasses or could they be tinted? 

I am assuming this would be a no on the flashlights but I thought I would ask anyways.. 


Seriously? 



Having 18 flashlights on your robot would be legal provided that no other rules were violated, 

but intentionally trying to blind your opponent is clearly not permitted. 





When introducing the sacks onto a tile, must they all be in physical contact with the tile? 

ie Can you load them as a vertical stack where only one is touching the gray tile and the rest 

are on top of the first? 

Same thing for the robot - can you load 5 at once as a stack on the robot where only 1 sack is 

actually touching the robot? 

Thanks, 

Dan 

Page 166 of 238





When introducing the sacks onto a tile, must they all be in physical contact with the tile? 

ie Can you load them as a vertical stack where only one is touching the gray tile and the rest 

are on top of the first? 

Same thing for the robot - can you load 5 at once as a stack on the robot where only 1 sack is 

actually touching the robot? 

Thanks, 

Dan 

For the purposes of , placing stacks of Scoring Objects on either the Alliance Starting 

Tile or the Robot is legal. 


Posted by drdanielfc at 01/16/2013 02:15:49 am 

Thanks! 

Also, if there is already a sack on the tile would it be legal to place a driver control load on top 

of the sack or must you put them down all at once? 



Thanks! 

Also, if there is already a sack on the tile would it be legal to place a driver control load on top 

of the sack or must you put them down all at once? 


There's no restriction on how many sacks you place on the tile at once. What you have 

described would be legal. 


Answered: Latex tubing/size of flag 

Answered: Latex tubing/size of flag 

Posted by CyberFalcon at 01/09/2013 10:40:43 pm 

Can the flag stick be shortened as long as it is still visible? 

What is the max size of latex tubing you can use? Can you use any size up to that size? And 

last is there a quanity limit? 

Re: Latex tubing/size of flag 


Can the flag stick be shortened as long as it is still visible? 

Not, this is not legal. 

Page 167 of 238



What is the max size of latex tubing you can use? Can you use any size up to that size? And 

last is there a quanity limit? 

The only legal latex tubing in the VRC is found here: 

http://www.vexrobotics.com/vex/products/accessories/structure/275-1262.html 

You may use any size up to the 5' lengths that this tubing is sold as. There is no specific limit 

on the number of lengths you may use. 


Answered: Penalties for rules without defined penalties 

Answered: Penalties for rules without defined penalties 

Posted by Rick TYler at 01/09/2013 10:41:12 pm 

I am asking this on behalf of a team mentor: 

There are many Sack Attack rules which specify the penalty for violating the rules, such as: 

During the qualification rounds, the red Alliance has the right to place their Robots on 

the field last. (...) Teams who violate this rule will have their robots randomly repositioned by 

the referees. 


during the Autonomous Period. Violations of this rule will result in the offending Alliance 

automatically losing the Autonomous Bonus and the offending Robot being disabled. 

Other rules do not have prescribed penalties, such as: 

Prior to the start of each Match, each Robot will have one (1) Sack available as a 

Preload. A Sack is considered to be legally preloaded if it is touching the Robot and not 

touching a Field Element. Any unused Preloads become Driver Control Loads. 




shields while in the pit or alliance stations during matches. 

The question is: how should referees deal with the rules that do not have defined penalites? 

Re: Penalties for rules without defined penalties 


Prior to the start of each Match, each Robot will have one (1) Sack available as a 

Page 168 of 238



Preload. A Sack is considered to be legally preloaded if it is touching the Robot and not 

touching a Field Element. Any unused Preloads become Driver Control Loads. 

Teams will be asked to rectify any illegal Preloads. If they do not do so in a timely manner, the 

preload will be removed from the robot. 


Any extra person in the driver's station will be asked to leave the field area. Refusal to do so 

could result in a disqualificaton as per in extreme circumstances. 


Any Driver or Coach outside the driver's station during their Match, will be asked to return to 

the driver's station. Refusal to do so could result in a disqualificaton as per in extreme 

circumstances. 


shields while in the pit or alliance stations during matches. 

Team members who are not wearing safety glasses in the designated areas will be asked to 

put their glasses on. Refusal to do so will result in those not wearing being asked to leave said 

designated areas. 


Answered: Shovel 

Answered: Shovel 

Posted by christine.bertsch at 01/10/2013 04:06:32 pm 

Sorry to ask such a dumb question, but this is my first time! 

My students have a shovel on the front of their robot to push the bean bags. Are they allowed 

to push the bags during driver control? The rules implied that you could not do that during 

autonomous control but did not specify for driver control. 

Thank you!! 

Re: Shovel 


Sorry to ask such a dumb question, but this is my first time! 

My students have a shovel on the front of their robot to push the bean bags. Are they allowed 

to push the bags during driver control? The rules implied that you could not do that during 

autonomous control but did not specify for driver control. 

Thank you 

Page 169 of 238



Trust me, this question isn't even close to being dumb compared to some of the other ones 

we've had here! 

There are no specific rules that prevent teams from pushing the Sacks during either the 

Autonomous or Driver Controlled Periods. 


Answered: clarification on scored during skills challenge for "Scored in both" 

Answered: clarification on scored during skills challenge for "Scored in both" 


I just want official clarification since it was debated at one of our meetings. 

Under definition of scoring in the regular game manual it states the following: 

"If a Scoring Object meets the criteria of being in both a red and blue High Goal OR both a red 

and blue Trough, it will be Scored in both." 

From the skills challenge manuals it states the following: 

"Please note that all rules from “The Game” section of the manual apply to the Robot Skills 

Challenge, unless otherwise specified" 

and it also states the following: 

"All scoring is the same as in a regular VEX Sack Attack match." 

If, during programming skills or driver skills, we place sacks on the high goal which meet the 

definition of "scored" in both Red and Blue does that mean that those sacks are worth 20 (or 

30) points each? In otherwords, if we can hang the sacks on the clear plastic separating the 

red triangle from the blue triangle can we score 20 points for each of the green sacks and 30 

points for each of the yellow sacks that we place there? 

Hope we adequately described the question, we can certainly post a picture if needed. 

Re: clarification on scored during skills challenge for "Scored in both" 


I 

If, during programming skills or driver skills, we place sacks on the high goal which meet the 

definition of "scored" in both Red and Blue does that mean that those sacks are worth 20 (or 

30) points each? In otherwords, if we can hang the sacks on the clear plastic separating the 

red triangle from the blue triangle can we score 20 points for each of the green sacks and 30 

points for each of the yellow sacks that we place there? 

We ask teams to please search carefully before posting in this forum, as the answer to your 

question may have already been posted. Here are some similar questions to this one that have 

previously been answered. 


Page 170 of 238





In the Skills Challenge (like the normal match), a Sack scored in multiple goals of the same 

type will count for both goals. So in Skills, these Sacks are effectively worth double. 


PIC Controller with VEXNet Module 

PIC Controller with VEXNet Module 

Posted by modelairplane at 01/12/2013 04:06:47 am 

Is it legal to use the PIC controller with VEXNet module in the 2013 VEX World Championship 

Event? Some teams are still using old PIC controller with VEXNet add-on module due to its 

higher controlling precision. 

Thanks! 

7082 


Can I continue to run tasks between autonomous and drive controlled periods? 

Can I continue to run tasks between autonomous and drive controlled periods? 

Posted by Jacob Wall at 01/16/2013 12:43:22 am 

We have separate tasks for the lifting of our robot's arm (for scoring) and the driving of our 

robot. Both tasks are used in both the autonomous and user-controlled periods. Especially in 

the case of our lift system (which uses PID to maintain the height of the arm), it would be very 

useful to continue running the tasks between autonomous and user-controlled periods. I 

noticed that in the default competition template in ROBOTC, there is a 

"bStopTasksBetweenModes" variable, which reportedly allows us to continue running 

user-created tasks between the autonomous and user-controlled tasks. 

Will this work? Are we allowed to continue running our tasks between autonomous and 

user-controlled periods? 


Answered: Skills Rankings 

Answered: Skills Rankings 

Posted by drdanielfc at 01/17/2013 12:19:57 am 

On the world skills rankings on at 

http://www.robotevents.com/robot-competitions/vex-robotics-competition/programming-skills I 

can't seem to figure out how a tie is determined. 

For example, Isoelectronic has 130 points but is ranked higher than 2 teams who also have 

130 points. Also, one 85 point team (Tech-Know Commandos) is in the green section but 4 

others are outside that range for some reason. 

Is this a mistake or is there something in the rankings that I'm not understanding? 

Page 171 of 238

Re: Skills Rankings 




On the world skills rankings on at 

http://www.robotevents.com/robot-competitions/vex-robotics-competition/programming-skills I 

can't seem to figure out how a tie is determined. 

For example, Isoelectronic has 130 points but is ranked higher than 2 teams who also have 

130 points. Also, one 85 point team (Tech-Know Commandos) is in the green section but 4 

others are outside that range for some reason. 

Is this a mistake or is there something in the rankings that I'm not understanding? 

If two teams are tied for their highest score, the first tiebreaker is their next highest score. Full 

details can be found in the Programming Skills Challenge Rankings section of Appendix C - 

Programming Skills Challenge. I've quoted the pertinent section here: 

For each Programming Skills Match teams are awarded a score based on the above scoring 

rules. 

• Teams will be ranked based on their highest Programming Skills Match score, with the team 

with the highest score being declared the Programming Skills Challenge Winner. 

• In the case where two teams are tied for the highest score, the tie will be broken by looking at 

both teams’ next highest Programming Skills Match score. 


Answered: Wedge robot 

Answered: Wedge robot 

Posted by Bots_"n"_Stuff at 01/18/2013 02:57:35 am 

Hi Karthik, 

http://imgur.com/dKn7o 

The picture above depicts a concept for a robot. The robot is essentially a defensive pushing 

robot where the thin front portion of the "wedge" acts as a shovel. This is used to push sacks 

around the field when defending is not the highest priority. However, would this robot be 

deemed illegal for unnecessary tipping risk? If this robot were to push an opponent with its 

front, there is a high risk of the robot driving on top of the wedge and possible tipping over. 

1. Wedge robot initiates partial tipping, wedge robot continues forward, thus tipping the 

opponent. 

2. Wedge robot initiates partial tipping, wedge robot attempts to disengage but opponent 

continues forward and thus tips. 

3. Opponent initiates partial tipping (driving up wedge robot), wedge robot continues forward, 

thus tipping the opponent. 

Page 172 of 238



4. Opponent initiates partial tipping (driving up wedge robot), wedge robot attempts to 

disengage but opponent continues forward and thus tips. 

In which of these four situations would the wedge robot be DQed? 

Thanks as always! 

Re: Wedge robot 


Let me preface this answer by saying that it's impossible to give a blanket answer on these 

sorts of snapshots hypothetical situations. Here's our best guidance based on the information 

available to us about these hypotheticals. 

1. Wedge robot initiates partial tipping, wedge robot continues forward, thus tipping the 

opponent. 

This appears to be a clear case of intentional tipping. The wedge robot has initiated the tip, 

and does nothing to rectify the situation. 

2. Wedge robot initiates partial tipping, wedge robot attempts to disengage but opponent 

continues forward and thus tips. 

This situation is far less clear. In general, for an intentional tipping call to be made, the 

offending team must be responsible for initiating and finishing the tip. In this situation the 

wedge robot has initiated the tip, but attempts to stop. From your description, it's the tipped 

robot that has finished the tip. As such, it seems like this would be a situation where no foul 

was called. 

3. Opponent initiates partial tipping (driving up wedge robot), wedge robot continues forward, 

thus tipping the opponent. 

This situation is even murkier. The opponent has chosen to drive upon the wedge robot, but 

the wedge robot has taken advantage of this to tip the opposing robot. The referees would 

evaluate situations like this on a case by case basis. In general, to protect themselves from 

DQs and tips, we recommend that teams don't drive on top of other robots, and also that 

teams do not try and drive through robots that are on top of them and in danger of tipping. 

4. Opponent initiates partial tipping (driving up wedge robot), wedge robot attempts to 

disengage but opponent continues forward and thus tips. 

In this situation, it would appear to be a no call, as it seems as if the tipped robot created their 

own tipping situation. 




Page 173 of 238

Posted by Snochum at 01/18/2013 04:00:25 am 

Hi Karthik, 



If a mechanism is designed to fire a small piece of linear slide to the starting tile and remain 

connected to the robot through 4 feet of string, would this mechanism be illegal under the 

terms of for unnecessary risk of entanglement? 

The intention is to get a parking bonus while still being able to descore/score troughs/high goal 

in the very final seconds of the match with a light and compact mechanism. The projectile itself 

is safe and poses no risk to people around the field or field elements. If string in this scenario 

is not legal, would other slack pieces like small chain or high strength chain be legal 

substitutes for string? 

Thanks for your time! 



Hi Karthik, 

If a mechanism is designed to fire a small piece of linear slide to the starting tile and remain 

connected to the robot through 4 feet of string, would this mechanism be illegal under the 

terms of for unnecessary risk of entanglement? 

The intention is to get a parking bonus while still being able to descore/score troughs/high goal 

in the very final seconds of the match with a light and compact mechanism. The projectile itself 

is safe and poses no risk to people around the field or field elements. If string in this scenario 

is not legal, would other slack pieces like small chain or high strength chain be legal 

substitutes for string? 

Thanks for your time 

Take a look at these previous Q&A responses on the same/similar topics: 



Here's the key concept from those earlier responses: 

"Non rigid devices which extend beyond the frame of a robot, are typically considered to be 



definitely be considered unnecessary risks of entanglement." 


Answered: wallbots 

Answered: wallbots 

Posted by matt at 01/19/2013 01:04:47 am 

Page 174 of 238



If my 12 foot elastic expanding wall bot:D:D in autonomous smashes another robot that is 

trying to outrun the wall, do i get disqualified???:D:D:D 

Re: wallbots 


If my 12 foot elastic expanding wall bot:D:D in autonomous smashes another robot that is 

trying to outrun the wall, do i get disqualified???:D:D:D 

There's not enough information in this question to issue any sort of blanket ruling. However, 

contact is expected during VRC matches, thus two robots "smashing" into each other is 

typically not a penalty. 


Answered: Mecanum/holonomic pinning 

Answered: Mecanum/holonomic pinning 


In a match I had recently, we were called for trapping. 

I have a problem with this, as they would have been able to get out of it, since they had 

mecanum wheels, and chose not to. They were between us and the far trough post. We were 

up against the wall though. 

Should anything have been called on us? 

Re: Mecanum/holonomic pinning 

Posted by Ricky Torrance at 01/23/2013 12:46:54 pm 

We cannot answer questions about tournament rules in this section. I am moving your post. 

Re: Mecanum/holonomic pinning 


In a match I had recently, we were called for trapping. 

I have a problem with this, as they would have been able to get out of it, since they had 

mecanum wheels, and chose not to. They were between us and the far trough post. We were 

up against the wall though. 

Should anything have been called on us? 

If a team has an avenue for escape that they choose not to take, this should not be called 

Trapping and/or Pinning. However, we cannot comment on this specific scenario without 

knowing the full details of the situation. 


Answered: Legality of Twist Ties 

Answered: Legality of Twist Ties 

Posted by Kennenth at 01/20/2013 01:29:59 pm 

Are twist ties legal for the sole purpose of bundling wires together on a robot and securing 

wiring to the structural frame of a robot, or would they fall under functional items not sold by 

vex and thus illegal? 

Was inspired by the discussion on here: 

http://www.vexforum.com/showthread.php?t=75348&page=2 

Page 175 of 238

Thanks! 

Re: Legality of Twist Ties 




Are twist ties legal for the sole purpose of bundling wires together on a robot and securing 

wiring to the structural frame of a robot, or would they fall under functional items not sold by 

vex and thus illegal? 

Was inspired by the discussion on here: 

http://www.vexforum.com/showthread.php?t=75348&page=2 

Thanks 

No, this would not be legal. Twist ties used for this purpose would be functional, and are not 

part of the VEX Robotics Design System. Thus their use on a robot would not be legal. 


Answered: Rule 7 Clarification 

Answered: Rule 7 Clarification 

Posted by fretless_kb at 01/20/2013 03:30:58 pm 

A previous version of the Sack Attack Game Manual specifically listed Garolite as an allowed 

material under Rule 7(f). I noticed that the updated manual (6-22-12) does not list Garolite. Is 

Garolite still allowed? is it one of the following Acronyms? Thanks. 

Originally Posted by VEX Sack Attack Game Manual 





Re: Rule 7 Clarification 


A previous version of the Sack Attack Game Manual specifically listed Garolite as an allowed 

material under Rule 7(f). I noticed that the updated manual (6-22-12) does not list Garolite. Is 

Garolite still allowed? is it one of the following Acronyms? Thanks. 

Originally Posted by VEX Sack Attack Game Manual 





No, Garolite is not allowed. Here's a post describing why was edited: 


Page 176 of 238



It was determined that the cutting of Garolite could be problematic and cause unnecessary 

safety issues. 

Re: Answered: Rule 7 Clarification 

Posted by fretless_kb at 01/25/2013 03:59:59 am 

Thank you. 


Answered: Pneumatics 

Answered: Pneumatics 


Is there a maximum number of pneumatic pistons that you could use on a robot? 

Re: Pneumatics 


Is there a maximum number of pneumatic pistons that you could use on a robot? 

Provided that no other rules are violated in the process, there is no limit. However, remember 

that there are only a finite number of ports on the Cortex, the Robot size is limited by total 

volume, etc. 


Answered: College Challenge driver eligibility 

Answered: College Challenge driver eligibility 

Posted by Bleegle at 01/22/2013 02:28:25 am 

Appendix F states: 

"6. Each Robot is still only allowed up to two (2) operators and one (1) coach. 





a driver. (This is the “College Challenge”)." 

Does this mean that high school students taking college courses while still at high school are 

eligible to drive? And if so, students taking college courses online? (for example edx.org). 

Thanks! 

Re: College Challenge driver eligibility 


Appendix F states: 

"6. Each Robot is still only allowed up to two (2) operators and one (1) coach. 





Page 177 of 238

a driver. (This is the “College Challenge”)." 



Does this mean that high school students taking college courses while still at high school are 

eligible to drive? And if so, students taking college courses online? (for example edx.org). 

Thanks 

Yes, this would be legal. 


Answered: Request to Power off Robot if Unresponsive During Match 

Answered: Request to Power off Robot if Unresponsive During Match 

Posted by StephenDsDude at 01/22/2013 03:21:47 am 

I know and explicitly state that the only times a robot may be handled is if it is 

being repositioned or was unable to start/move at the beginning of the match. 

However, due to recent events, I am worried about the integrity of our robot during certain 

glitches with the Cortex, specifically when it fails to respond to the joystick or competition 

control. If the robot is unresponsive such as it becomes during this video: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcj4XwnMQKk&feature=player_detailpage#t=96s 

it runs the risk of causing severe damage if it runs for an extended period of time. 

Could we be allowed to: 

1) If the robot is easily accessible without obstructing any of the robots or game objects, turn 

off and disconnect the power without moving/changing the state of the robot or game objects 

during the match. 

2) Be able to do #1 at the end of the match, but before the referees finish scoring? 

I realize that what I did at the end of the match should not have been allowed (the moving of 

the robot), but I would like to know at least if the powering off is legal. 

Thank you, 

Stephen 

Re: Request to Power off Robot if Unresponsive During Match 


I know and explicitly state that the only times a robot may be handled is if it is 

being repositioned or was unable to start/move at the beginning of the match. 

However, due to recent events, I am worried about the integrity of our robot during certain 

glitches with the Cortex, specifically when it fails to respond to the joystick or competition 

control. If the robot is unresponsive such as it becomes during this video: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcj4XwnMQKk&feature=player_detailpage#t=96s 

it runs the risk of causing severe damage if it runs for an extended period of time. 

Could we be allowed to: 

1) If the robot is easily accessible without obstructing any of the robots or game objects, turn 

Page 178 of 238



off and disconnect the power without moving/changing the state of the robot or game objects 

during the match. 

2) Be able to do #1 at the end of the match, but before the referees finish scoring? 

I realize that what I did at the end of the match should not have been allowed (the moving of 

the robot), but I would like to know at least if the powering off is legal. 

Thank you, 

Stephen 

#1 would not be legal, but #2 would be, provided that the referees give you the go ahead to do 

so. 

Re: Request to Power off Robot if Unresponsive During Match 

Posted by StephenDsDude at 01/24/2013 11:39:13 pm 

#1 would not be legal, but #2 would be, provided that the referees give you the go ahead to do 

so. 

Okay, thank you Karthik. I'll see what I can do to prevent such issues from arising. 


Answered: Tipping While Descoring 

Answered: Tipping While Descoring <G11> 

Posted by 1826_Kitteh at 01/23/2013 04:39:37 am 

Hi! During one of the competitions we were in, there was a point where we were 

going to descore some sacks within a trough, but there was an opposing robot with their 

pickup mechanism directly above the trough. We went in to descore the sacks, but ended up 

tipping the opposing team in the process. 

Here is the video: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CAUtzJAsa4 

In the end, our team was not disqualified for this, but we received a huge warning not to do this 

again. Under it says: 

"Strategies aimed soley at the destruction, damage tipping over, or Entanglement of Robots 

are not part of the ethos of the VEX Robotics Competition and are not allowed." 

Should this have been called as a violation of ? 

Also, a thank you to team 1069F for filming the match and uploading it to youtube. :) 

Re: Tipping While Descoring <G11> 


Should this have been called as a violation of ? 

Page 179 of 238



From what can be discerned in this video, there was no clear violation of . However in 

any case of accidental tipping, it's appropriate for the referees to warn the team to be more 

careful in the future. 


Answered: Labeling Field Elements 

Answered: Labeling Field Elements 

Posted by Kimberli at 01/24/2013 10:07:53 pm 

Hi! Our club is lending a competition field to a school hosting a tournament next weekend. To 

what extent can we label our field's parts? We already have our sacks labeled with Sharpie. 

Can we use printed mailing labels on the perimeter, plexiglass, troughs, and high goals? Or 

would that be altering the field elements? Can we at least use Sharpie? 

Re: Labeling Field Elements 


Hi! Our club is lending a competition field to a school hosting a tournament next weekend. To 

what extent can we label our field's parts? We already have our sacks labeled with Sharpie. 

Can we use printed mailing labels on the perimeter, plexiglass, troughs, and high goals? Or 

would that be altering the field elements? Can we at least use Sharpie? 

Yes, this type of labeling is acceptable. 

Re: Answered: Labeling Field Elements 

Posted by Kimberli at 02/18/2013 09:22:10 pm 


Re: Answered: Labeling Field Elements 





Answered: Was this pinning? 

Answered: Was this pinning? 

Posted by 536C at 01/26/2013 08:56:59 pm 

In two recent matches, a pushbot had contact with us. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnM-mLy_Ywk 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd56eoZ6QyQ 

was this pinning/trapping? 

Thanks, 

536C 

Page 180 of 238

Re: Was this pinning? 


In two recent matches, a pushbot had contact with us. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnM-mLy_Ywk 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd56eoZ6QyQ 

was this pinning/trapping? 



From the vantage shown in the videos, no pinning/trapping was seen. In the second video, 

although it appears that the small robot is pinning the 536 robot, the 536 robot made no 

attempt to escape, thus their movement was not inhibited. (They appear to be focused on 

descoring the trough, and content to stay in that spot) 

Re: Answered: Was this pinning? 


Thank you for the response 

Re: Answered: Was this pinning? 


Thank you for the response 





Posted by Team7706 at 01/28/2013 12:14:05 am 

The rules state that Robots may not intentionally grasp, grapple or attach to any Field 

Elements. Violations of this rule will result in a Disqualification 

What is the specific definition of grasping\grappling? 



What is the specific definition of grasping\grappling? 

For the purposes of all VRC documents, any terms which are not defined in the Definitions 

section use a standard dictionary definition. For example: 

Grasp: to seize and hold by or as if by clasping with the fingers or arms. 

Grapple: to hold or make fast to something, as with a grapple. 


Answered: Standoffs as Damage under ? 

Answered: Standoffs as Damage under <R3>? 

Page 181 of 238




Would unaltered, 2" Stand offs sticking out horizontally violate 





Since i believe it's a case by case basis, here are more in-depth details. 

The standoffs are meant to be used as a roll guard and will be mounted at the front of the 

Drivetrain horizontally. It is not the outer most point of the robot, so whenever the robot 

decides to push an opponent or be pushed, the standoffs will not touched. Also, the standoffs 

do not have any special fastener/method to fasten and tend to get flippy and loose as the 

match goes on 

Re: Standoffs as Damage under <R3>? 


The standoffs are meant to be used as a roll guard and will be mounted at the front of the 

Drivetrain horizontally. It is not the outer most point of the robot, so whenever the robot 

decides to push an opponent or be pushed, the standoffs will not touched. Also, the standoffs 

do not have any special fastener/method to fasten and tend to get flippy and loose as the 

match goes on 

From what you've described, this design does not appear to violate any rules. 


Answered: Replacing partners 

Answered: Replacing partners 

Posted by Robowarriors at 01/29/2013 08:20:37 pm 

Is there an official Vex protocol for replacing alliance partners in the qualification rounds? 

Re: Replacing partners 


Is there an official Vex protocol for replacing alliance partners in the qualification rounds? 

There is no replacement of partners during the qualification rounds. 


Answered: Field tape as part of starting tile? 

Answered: Field tape as part of starting tile? 


Does the tape on the left/right sides of the starting tiles count as the tile for parking and scoring 

floor goals? 

Re: Field tape as part of starting tile? 

Page 182 of 238




Does the tape on the left/right sides of the starting tiles count as the tile for parking and scoring 

floor goals? 

Yes, the tape lines touching the Alliance Starting Tiles are considered to be part of the Floor 

Goals. 


Answered: Is it legal to harden VEX parts? 

Answered: Is it legal to harden VEX parts? 

Posted by Spartin at 01/31/2013 12:45:19 am 

Is it legal to harden VEX parts? 

Hi, 




in 

ANY way. 

• Internal or external mechanical repairs of VEX Limit and Bumper switches are permitted 

o Using components from these devices in other applications is prohibited 



length is not modified in any way. Wire used in repairs must be identical to VEX wire. 

Teams may make these repairs at their own risk; incorrect wiring may have 

undesired results. 

• Teams may change or replace the gears in the “2-Wire 393” or “2-Wire 269” motors, with 

the corresponding official VEX Replacement Gears 


VEX 

Robotics Design System will NOT be allowed. 

• Mechanical fasteners may be secured using Loctite or a similar thread-locking product. 


• Teams are permitted to fuse/melt the end of the 1/8” nylon rope to prevent fraying 


I was wondering if it is legal to harden a VEX part. I looked in the VEX game manual for this 

year, but i could not find anything on hardening a VEX part. 

thanks, 

Re: Is it legal to harden VEX parts? 


Is it legal to harden VEX parts? 

I was wondering if it is legal to harden a VEX part. I looked in the VEX game manual for this 

year, but i could not find anything on hardening a VEX part. 

Page 183 of 238

No, this is not legal. 


Answered: Plating??? 

Answered: Plating??? 

Posted by sbdrobotics at 01/31/2013 08:21:30 pm 



I know it is allowable to paint or anodize parts, what about plating them? My team has built a 

great looking robot this year and received a lot of compliments, and now they want to plate 

their next robot in copper and brass. 

I would hate to see them get disqualified for doing this so I figured I would ask before they did 

it. I see this as being the same or very similar to anodizing, but figured I would look straight to 

the final authority before I let them proceed with it. 

Re: Plating??? 


I know it is allowable to paint or anodize parts, what about plating them? My team has built a 

great looking robot this year and received a lot of compliments, and now they want to plate 

their next robot in copper and brass. 

I would hate to see them get disqualified for doing this so I figured I would ask before they did 

it. I see this as being the same or very similar to anodizing, but figured I would look straight to 

the final authority before I let them proceed with it. 

Yes, this would be legal. For the purposes of this rule, it would be considered a form of 

anodizing. 


Answered: Electric Air Compressor 

Answered: Electric Air Compressor 

Posted by Thorondor at 02/01/2013 02:40:00 am 

I was wondering about the legality of using an electric air compressor to fill up the pneumatic 

tanks. We've been using it for testing the last few weeks since we don't have a working 

manual pump and it completely skipped my mind that it might not be legal. We have a 

competition tomorrow so I want to make sure that we will be able to use our pneumatics. 

Re: Electric Air Compressor 

Posted by Thorondor at 02/01/2013 02:41:17 am 

Just found this thread: 

http://www.vexforum.com/showthread.php?t=66439&highlight=compressor So I'm hoping the 

answer is still a yes. Would the rules be different depending on the tournament venue? 

Re: Electric Air Compressor 


I was wondering about the legality of using an electric air compressor to fill up the pneumatic 

tanks. We've been using it for testing the last few weeks since we don't have a working 

manual pump and it completely skipped my mind that it might not be legal. We have a 

competition tomorrow so I want to make sure that we will be able to use our pneumatics. 

Page 184 of 238



Answered: 3D Printed Parts 

Answered: 3D Printed Parts 

Posted by PCHSRobotics at 02/01/2013 05:57:21 pm 



I know the rules state that we can use any parts that are identical to official VEX parts. Does 

that include parts that we can print at our school with a MakerBot that the CTE department 

has? It makes the parts out of plastic that is very similar to the plastic that VEX gears are 

made of so I would assume that they would be legal since they are identical. 

Thanks! 

Re: 3D Printed Parts 


identical to official VEX bots. 

*VEX parts, not VEX bots, sorry 



Just to save you the time of looking, the related rule states: 

"R7.B Any parts which are identical to legal VEX parts. For the purposes of this rule, products 


determine whether a component is “identical” to an official VEX component." 







Thanks 

No, these homemade gears would not be considered identical, thus not legal. 


Answered: Remote mounting of a VEXnet key 

Answered: Remote mounting of a VEXnet key 

Posted by Wingus or Dingus at 02/01/2013 07:30:54 pm 

R7 j. A USB extension cable may be used for the sole purpose of remote mounting of a 

VEXnet key. 




Page 185 of 238




Will this rule be enforced at the World Championship? 

I understand why it's good to keep metal away from the VEXnet key antenna but once you 

mount it in a decent place surely it would be better than being stuck in the cortex module 

buried in the robot with metal likely to be closer than 2" anyway? 

Maybe this should be a recommendation rather than a rule? After all if a team remote mounts 

their VEXnet key and covers it in metal surely that's their problem anyway as they could just as 

easily do this with a Cortex mounted VEXnet key. 

Re: Remote mounting of a VEXnet key 


Will this rule be enforced at the World Championship? 

I understand why it's good to keep metal away from the VEXnet key antenna but once you 

mount it in a decent place surely it would be better than being stuck in the cortex module 

buried in the robot with metal likely to be closer than 2" anyway? 

Maybe this should be a recommendation rather than a rule? After all if a team remote mounts 

their VEXnet key and covers it in metal surely that's their problem anyway as they could just as 

easily do this with a Cortex mounted VEXnet key. 

Yes, this rule will be enforced at VEX Worlds. 


Answered: Official VEX cable ties? 

Answered: Official VEX cable ties? 

Posted by Wingus or Dingus at 02/01/2013 07:43:47 pm 

These are the official VEX cable ties: 

4" Zip Ties (100-pack) 

P/N: 276-1032 

1/10" wide x 4" long with a rating of 18lbs. 

11" Zip Ties (100-pack) 

P/N: 275-0125 

11 inches long with a rating of 30lbs. (width not specified) 

I know many teams substitute other cable ties sometimes with pretty colours too! Cable ties 

can be purchased in many different lengths, widths and even load ratings. 

Is it legal to use cable ties that are spec'd differently? Longer, shorter, wider, narrower etc. 

Are teams expected to produce documentation detailing their cable tie specs if they are 

non-VEX parts? 

Re: Official VEX cable ties? 


I know many teams substitute other cable ties sometimes with pretty colours too! Cable ties 

can be purchased in many different lengths, widths and even load ratings. 

Is it legal to use cable ties that are spec'd differently? Longer, shorter, wider, narrower etc. 

Are teams expected to produce documentation detailing their cable tie specs if they are 

Page 186 of 238

non-VEX parts? 



Let's take a look at the official rule from the VEX Sack Attack Game Manual. 





So, for the purposes of zip ties, they should be identical length and thickness. Any colours, 

pretty or ugly, are acceptable. 


Answered: Crossing alliance tile during autonomous SG7 and SG8 

Answered: Crossing alliance tile during autonomous SG7 and SG8 

Posted by piniontwister at 02/04/2013 01:44:03 am 

At a recent event, the opposing robot crossed over our starting tile during autonomous. The 

referee did the proper thing and disabled the robot by having the driver place the controls on 

the floor (per rule SG7). 

Our questions centers around the last part of rule SG3 - specifically "there is no penalty for 

pinning during the Autonomous period." 

question 1: if the robot comes across and makes contact with our robot and consequently 

becomes disabled (per rule SG7) and we are pinned or trapped because of the action - should 

the robot also be disqualified per rule SG3? 

We believe the robot should be disqualified about 5 seconds into the driver control period 

because it has been disabled, has trapped our robot and the driver is responsible for the robot 

even if it stops moving (in this case because of being disabled). Are we correct? 

We also believe that our robot is performing specific tasks during autonomous and is exposed 

to potential damage from opposing robots when they come charging across the field onto our 

starting tile during autonomous. Without driver control we cannot retract arms or appendages 

which may be extended while on our starting tile (we have built the robot and programmed the 

robot to deal with the rules and not for robots which may not be). If the opposing robot makes 

contact with our robot we believe the actions to be intentional and egregious and believe that 

rule G11 should also apply in this case. Do you agree? 

question 2: If the same opposing robot pushes bags across the floor and deposits them onto 

our robot during autonomous (which really happened)-does the referee have to determine 

intent as per rule SG8 or does this rule not apply since the opposing robot is in the process of 

scoring? In this case the opposing robot was scoring sacks onto the opposing starting tile 

during autonomous. 

Page 187 of 238



Sorry about asking crazy questions but these things do happen and we cannot always rely on 

rule G1 to apply when referees are involved so sometimes we like to have a G15 in our 

pocket. 

Re: Crossing alliance tile during autonomous SG7 and SG8 


question 1: if the robot comes across and makes contact with our robot and consequently 

becomes disabled (per rule SG7) and we are pinned or trapped because of the action - should 

the robot also be disqualified per rule SG3? 

We believe the robot should be disqualified about 5 seconds into the driver control period 

because it has been disabled, has trapped our robot and the driver is responsible for the robot 

even if it stops moving (in this case because of being disabled). Are we correct? 

Yes, this is correct, 

We also believe that our robot is performing specific tasks during autonomous and is exposed 

to potential damage from opposing robots when they come charging across the field onto our 

starting tile during autonomous. Without driver control we cannot retract arms or appendages 

which may be extended while on our starting tile (we have built the robot and programmed the 

robot to deal with the rules and not for robots which may not be). If the opposing robot makes 

contact with our robot we believe the actions to be intentional and egregious and believe that 

rule G11 should also apply in this case. Do you agree? 

We cannot issue a blanket statement about a small snapshot of a hypothetical situation. 

However there are rare situations where a referee could rule this type of action to be an 

attempt to inflict intentional damage. 

question 2: If the same opposing robot pushes bags across the floor and deposits them onto 

our robot during autonomous (which really happened)-does the referee have to determine 

intent as per rule SG8 or does this rule not apply since the opposing robot is in the process of 

scoring? In this case the opposing robot was scoring sacks onto the opposing starting tile 

during autonomous. 

This would not be a violations of because this action would be ruled to be accidental. 


Answered: Polycarbonate Max Size 

Answered: Polycarbonate Max Size 

Posted by weiservex at 02/07/2013 09:45:13 pm 

Does the polycarbonate have to be cut from a piece that is 12" in width? Or can we use a 

piece wider? Or in other words can we have a piece of polycarbonate that is under or equal to 

the 288 square inches alotted(the area of a 12"x24" piece of polycarbonate)...We would really 

like to use a 15"x18" of polycarbonate and we were wondering if we could do that...THANKS! 

Re: Polycarbonate Max Size 

Page 188 of 238




Does the polycarbonate have to be cut from a piece that is 12" in width? 

Yes, this is correct. A 15"x18" sheet would not be permissible. 


Answered: VEX iRobot Create Mounting Kit Legal 

Answered: VEX iRobot Create Mounting Kit Legal 

Posted by Foster at 02/09/2013 06:50:47 pm 

Is the VEX iRobot Create® Mounting Kit legal for Sack Attack? 

http://www.vexrobotics.com/vex/products/accessories/individual/275-1199.html 

Thanks! 

Foster 

Re: VEX iRobot Create Mounting Kit Legal 


Is the VEX iRobot Create® Mounting Kit legal for Sack Attack? 

http://www.vexrobotics.com/vex/products/accessories/individual/275-1199.html 

Yes, this is a legal part for VEX Sack Attack. 


Answered: repositioning in autonomous 

Answered: repositioning in autonomous 

Posted by mstrong at 02/11/2013 12:29:18 am 

I'm sorry if these are basic questions but they have come up in recent tournaments with 

different interpretations and I would appreciate clarification. 

First, what is the definition of a robot having left the starting tile? Any part of the robot leaving 

the tile or the entire robot? 

Second, if a robot should tip over backwards while extending in autonomous, either a) never 

leaving the starting tile but falling on its back completely on the tile or b) partially moving off the 

starting tile and falling back with the extended arm leaning on the wall, is a team allowed to 

stand the robot back up? An argument has been made that this should be considered 

repositioning the robot relative to the field. 

Thanks, 

Margaret 

Re: repositioning in autonomous 


Page 189 of 238



First, what is the definition of a robot having left the starting tile? Any part of the robot leaving 

the tile or the entire robot? 

If this question is in regards to , this rule is intended to fix robots that cannot move at 

the start of the match. So for the purposes of this rule, if the robot has moved at all, you are 

not allowed to interact with it. 

Second, if a robot should tip over backwards while extending in autonomous, either a) never 

leaving the starting tile but falling on its back completely on the tile or b) partially moving off the 

starting tile and falling back with the extended arm leaning on the wall, is a team allowed to 

stand the robot back up? An argument has been made that this should be considered 

repositioning the robot relative to the field. 

Yes, this would be considered a legal repositioning, as long all other portions of are 

obeyed. 

Re: Answered: repositioning in autonomous 

Posted by mstrong at 02/18/2013 11:27:39 am 

Thank you! 

Re: Answered: repositioning in autonomous 


Thank you 



Answered: Plexi Glass? 

Answered: Plexi Glass? 

Posted by clabrador96 at 02/12/2013 11:30:16 pm 

What is the max a mount of Plexi glass is a team allowed to use in the Sack Attack 

Competition? 

Thanks 

Re: Plexi Glass? 


What is the max a mount of Plexi glass is a team allowed to use in the Sack Attack 

Competition? 

Thanks 

Plexiglass or Acrylic are not legal for use in VEX Sack Attack. For the full rule on the use of 

plastic, please see , quoted below for your convenience. 




Page 190 of 238






Answered: Boiling Wheels 

Answered: Boiling Wheels 

Posted by Chuck_Glick at 02/13/2013 03:14:40 am 

Recently it has come to my attention that there is a way to modify the opaque green rubber of 

the dual roller omni wheels and high traction tires through the process of submerging the 

wheel in a pot of boiling water. 

This process "hyper-hydrates" the rubber and thus softens the rubber. 

Is this process legal for competition or does it violate rule ? 




in ANY way. 

• Internal or external mechanical repairs of VEX Limit and Bumper switches are 

permitted 

o Using components from these devices in other applications is prohibited 



length is not modified in any way. Wire used in repairs must be identical to VEX wire. Teams 

may make these repairs at their own risk; incorrect wiring may have undesired results. 

• Teams may change or replace the gears in the “2-Wire 393” or 

“2-Wire 269” motors, with the corresponding official VEX Replacement Gears 



• Mechanical fasteners may be secured using Loctite or a similar thread-locking 

product. 


• Teams are permitted to fuse/melt the end of the 1/8” nylon rope to prevent 

fraying 


Page 191 of 238

Thank you for clarifying this issue. 

-Chuck 

Re: Boiling Wheels 




Recently it has come to my attention that there is a way to modify the opaque green rubber of 

the dual roller omni wheels and high traction tires through the process of submerging the 

wheel in a pot of boiling water. 

This process "hyper-hydrates" the rubber and thus softens the rubber. 

Is this process legal for competition or does it violate rule ? 

This process is not safe and not legal for use in the VRC. 


Answered: Use of AA battery covers? Also a spatula question ... 

Answered: Use of AA battery covers? Also a spatula question ... 


Guess what Karthik I have a real question for you... 

First about these AA battery holders... 

1) Is it legal to use these on your robot assuming you do not have any batteries in them? ( 

probably illegal correct?) 

2) Is it legal to use them if the cord and all electrical contacts are removed? 

3) Is it legal to use only the cover of the battery holders? The part that does not have any 

electrical contacts on it? 

Onto my next set of questions.. 

So if you have a spatula... are any rules broken in any of these situations? 

1) you push the spatula under someone's wheels? But this does not inhibit their movement... 

they could drive off... 

2) someone drives onto your spatula and does not move off of it.. is this considered pinning? 

Thanks 

Re: Use of AA battery covers? Also a spatula question ... 


Page 192 of 238

First about these AA battery holders... 



1) Is it legal to use these on your robot assuming you do not have any batteries in them? ( 

probably illegal correct?) 

No, this is not legal. 

2) Is it legal to use them if the cord and all electrical contacts are removed? 

No, this would be the modification of an electrical part, and thus illegal as per , quoted 

below. 




in ANY way. 

3) Is it legal to use only the cover of the battery holders? The part that does not have any 

electrical contacts on it? 

So if you have a spatula... are any rules broken in any of these situations? 

1) you push the spatula under someone's wheels? But this does not inhibit their movement... 

they could drive off... 

Provided no other rules are violated, this would be legal. 

2) someone drives onto your spatula and does not move off of it.. is this considered pinning? 

No, but a referee could rule this to be a form of intentional entanglement. 


Answered: Trapping in the case of a "robot sandwich" 

Answered: Trapping in the case of a "robot sandwich" 

Posted by Telemascope at 02/17/2013 02:12:50 am 

Hi Karthik! 

The definition for trapping states that: 




What I was wondering is whether a blue robot being "sandwiched" between two red robots, in 

a manner which it is UNABLE to escape, is considered trapping. You could argue that it 

Page 193 of 238



WOULD be considered trapping, as the robot is restricted into an area the size of a field tile or 

less, and there is also no USABLE avenue allowed for escape. However, I had others argue 

that it wouldn't be considered trapping because there would be space on either side of the 

sandwich, even if that space couldn't be utilised by the "sandwiched" robot, an avenue of 

escape was still being allowed, and the area the robot was being trapped in wasn't confined 

due to the empty space at the sides. 

I was wondering if you could clarify what the ruling would be in this case. I do understand that 

you can't give a blanket ruling on all cases like this, but in the case of a theoretical "perfect 

robot sandwich", how would this be ruled? 

Thanks, 

Lucas 

Re: Trapping in the case of a "robot sandwich" 


but in the case of a theoretical "perfect robot sandwich", how would this be ruled? 

In the case of a "perfect robot sandwich", the situation would not be ruled as trapping, as the 

robot has at least one clear path for escape. 


Answered: Creation of programming software 

Answered: Creation of programming software 


Would it be legal to create your own programing software (like robotc or easyc) to program 

your robot with for a competition? 

Re: Creation of programming software 


This thread got moved to this forum, so i'm moving it to the top in case you did not see it. 

Thanks. 

Re: Creation of programming software 


Would it be legal to create your own programing software (like robotc or easyc) to program 

your robot with for a competition? 

Yes, this would be legal, provided that no other rules are violated in the process, with the 

following caveats: 

1. Teams will be solely responsible for any errors or issues introduced by their own 

programming. 

2. Any teams who are caught trying to circumvent the field controls via custom software will be 

disqualified from the event. 

Re: Answered: Creation of programming software 

Posted by 536C at 03/13/2013 12:31:41 am 

Thank you. 

Page 194 of 238

This is going to be my summer project 

Re: Answered: Creation of programming software 


Thank you. 

This is going to be my summer project 

You're welcome, and enjoy your summer project! 



Answered: Potential to damage the field clarification 

Answered: Potential to damage the field clarification 

Posted by X-Factor at 02/18/2013 05:00:39 am 



The ruling in the previous thread stated that a Robot intentionally supporting part of its weight 

on the trough is at a risk of damaging the field and could be called for violating . 

We would like to further inquire about this ruling with a situation we have been placed in during 

practice against the resident hoarder at our club. This hasn't happened at a competition 

against us, so we have never had a referee give a ruling on the situation. 

The situation is depicted below 

7213 

On the left side of the dashed line is our shovel being used to cover a goal but we intentionally 

never make contact with the trough because then we would be deemed illegal for hanging on 

the troughs. The right side of the dashed line depicts the situation explained next. At the end of 

one match at our field, a hoarder style robot from our club legally empties their object holding 

mechanism placing the objects into scoring position in the troughs which happens to be on top 

of our shovel. This weight of over ten objects causes the tip of our polycarbonate to bend and 

make contact with the trough. All the wheels still maintained contact on the floor because only 

the polycarbonate bent. Would this be illegal because the our robot could be deemed a 

potential to damage the field while maintaining the position depicted in the picture, or deemed 

unintentionally being a potential damage to the field because we did everything in our power to 

prevent us from initially touching any part of the trough but were then forced to by the weight of 

the objects and the limits of the polycarbonate plate's strength. 

Re: Potential to damage the field clarification 


On the left side of the dashed line is our shovel being used to cover a goal but we intentionally 

never make contact with the trough because then we would be deemed illegal for hanging on 

the troughs. The right side of the dashed line depicts the situation explained next. At the end of 

one match at our field, a hoarder style robot from our club legally empties their object holding 

mechanism placing the objects into scoring position in the troughs which happens to be on top 

of our shovel. This weight of over ten objects causes the tip of our polycarbonate to bend and 

Page 195 of 238



make contact with the trough. All the wheels still maintained contact on the floor because only 

the polycarbonate bent. Would this be illegal because the our robot could be deemed a 

potential to damage the field while maintaining the position depicted in the picture, or deemed 

unintentionally being a potential damage to the field because we did everything in our power to 

prevent us from initially touching any part of the trough but were then forced to by the weight of 

the objects and the limits of the polycarbonate plate's strength. 

The situation you have described does not violate any rules. 

Re: Answered: Potential to damage the field clarification 

Posted by X-Factor at 02/26/2013 08:09:37 pm 

Thank you for the clarification. 

Re: Answered: Potential to damage the field clarification 


Thank you for the clarification. 



Answered: Trapping by robot falling on top of another robot 

Answered: Trapping by robot falling on top of another robot 

Posted by gdsinner at 02/18/2013 08:14:52 pm 

I was the Head Ref at a competition this weekend. During the first match of one of the 

semifinals, two robots with a U shaped chassis open in the front were in a shoving match, with 

both of their pick-up mechanisms lifted up far enough so that one wheel of the each of 

opposing robots was within the opening of the other robot. The blue robot started to back 

away, and the red robot, which had its lift mechanism up high, tipped over forward and landed 

squarely on top of the blue robot, pinning it to the ground. The red robot’s lift mechanism 

covered the entire blue robot - the base of the red robot was touching the floor in front of the 

blue robot, and the pick-up mechanism of the red robot was touching the floor in back of the 

blue robot. There was no way for the red robot to right itself, nor was there any way for the 

blue robot to get away. The match continued on briefly with the remaining two non-disabled 

robots. 

At the conclusion of the match, I conferred with the two referees on what ruling, if any, we 

should make (all three of us were watching the match). This was our conclusion and the 

definitions and rules that guided our decision: 





ruled to be intentional or egregious, the offending 

team may be disqualified from that Match. 

When the blue robot was backing away, it was possible that some entanglement had occurred, 

Page 196 of 238



and as the blue robot backed up, it could have snagged the red robot, causing it to flip. Even if 

that were case, there was no intent to entangle, and we couldn’t call blue for entanglement. 

An alternative possibility would be that the red robot’s extremely high center of gravity, 

combined with it trying vigorously to drive forward pushing the blue robot back, caused the red 

robot to tip over once the counterforce from the blue robot’s pushing was removed. Again, no 

intent on the part of the blue robot to tip – it just happened. 










Pin or Trap, a team may not Pin 

or Trap the same Robot again for a duration of 5 seconds. If a referee determines this rule to 

be violated, the offending Robot will be Disqualified for the match. 

Once the red robot had landed on top of the blue robot, the blue robot had no way to get away, 

and the red robot had no way to try to pick itself up and back away from the blue robot. We 

couldn’t call the red robot for pinning, as the blue robot was not touching any of the field 

elements. However, since the red robot was literally on top of the blue robot (about an 18 inch 

square space), and the blue robot couldn’t possibly move, our conclusion was that the red 

robot (and therefore the alliance since it was during the playoffs) should be DQ’d for trapping. 

This resulted in the blue alliance being awarded the first game of the match. 

I called over the four team captains, and explained our ruling, which three of the four 

understood – the dissenting team obviously was one of the teams on the DQ’d alliance, but not 

the robot that had flipped. Before I could announce to the audience the decision, the student 

on the dissenting team came up to protest that the red robot should not have been DQ’d as 

there were fewer than 5 seconds left in the match when the incident occurred, and you couldn’t 

be DQ’d for a pin/trap unless you held it for five seconds. 

I reconvened with the referees and asked the RECF representative to join the discussion. It 

was apparent that the blue robot had absolutely no way to get out from underneath the red 

robot, and the red robot had absolutely no way to right itself to move away. There were a few 

seconds left on the clock, but none of us were absolutely sure of how much time was left 

afterwards. We agreed that the best “common sense” call was that in this situation, the blue 

robot was hopelessly trapped, and that even if there was a full minute on the clock, that 

couldn’t change. So we stood by our call of trapping and the DQ. 

Page 197 of 238

Does this sound like a proper call? 

Thanks, 

Gary 



BTW, even after the DQ, the red alliance won the semifinal match 2-1. 

Re: Trapping by robot falling on top of another robot 


Before I could announce to the audience the decision, the student on the dissenting team 

came up to protest that the red robot should not have been DQ’d as there were fewer 

than 5 seconds left in the match when the incident occurred, and you couldn’t be 

DQ’d for a pin/trap unless you held it for five seconds. 

This is correct. It is legal to Pin/Trap a robot for less than 5 seconds. 

However, since you were not certain how much time was left in the match, this definitely 

comes down to a referees judgement call. I think your judgement was fine, but can definitely 

see how a different referee may have ruled differently. 

Thank you for your detailed question and analysis, as well as for volunteering. 

Re: Answered: Trapping by robot falling on top of another robot 

Posted by gdsinner at 02/25/2013 08:11:57 pm 


Re: Answered: Trapping by robot falling on top of another robot 




Answered: Pinning Question 

Answered: Pinning Question 

Posted by jaco7212 at 02/19/2013 01:40:05 am 

Hi Karthik 

In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYaxkfDUIXA) around 6:03 is the red robot 

considered pinning the blue robot against the high goal and trough? Is the blue robot 

considered entangled in the red robots arm? Below is the definition for pinning and 

entanglement and the rule on pinning. 




Entanglement – A robot is considered to have Entangled an opposing robot if it has grabbed or 

Page 198 of 238

hooked the opponent robot. 



SG3> A Robot cannot Pin or Trap an opposing Robot for more than five seconds during the 



Pin or Trap, a team may not Pinor Trap the same Robot again for a duration of 5 seconds. If a 



Thanks for all you do. 

Re: Pinning Question 


Hi Karthik 

In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYaxkfDUIXA) around 6:03 is the red robot 

considered pinning the blue robot against the high goal and trough? Is the blue robot 

considered entangled in the red robots arm? Below is the definition for pinning and 

entanglement and the rule on pinning. 




Entanglement – A robot is considered to have Entangled an opposing robot if it has 

grabbed or hooked the opponent robot. 

SG3> A Robot cannot Pin or Trap an opposing Robot for more than five seconds during the 



Pin or Trap, a team may not Pinor Trap the same Robot again for a duration of 5 seconds. If a 



Thanks for all you do. 

From what can be seen in the video, it appears the robot which is being inhibited has the 

ability to escape by simply backing up, thus this would not be considered Pinning. As for the 

Entanglement, it does not appear to be intentional, thus would not be a violation of . 

Re: Answered: Pinning Question 

Posted by jaco7212 at 02/26/2013 12:57:06 am 

Thanks for the response! 

Re: Answered: Pinning Question 



Page 199 of 238




Answered: I think there needs to be some clarification on pinning 

Answered: I think there needs to be some clarification on pinning 

Posted by vegas822 at 02/19/2013 02:03:51 am 

A few days ago, my team and I, 918B, was playing at a competition. In the finals, the first 

match we won, but the team that qualified for worlds (and unfortunately we didn't, even though 

we won Ha ha :)) was pinning us I believe (127C). I was hoping to get some clarification upon 

the rules of pinning and if this was considered pinning (we did count to 5 seconds, so if this is 

then they were pinning):confused::confused:. Thank you and good luck. ;);) 

-vegas822 

(I posted a video of the match. The link is below.) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFPHOv4iwEA 

Re: I think there needs to be some clarification on pinning 


A few days ago, my team and I, 918B, was playing at a competition. In the finals, the first 

match we won, but the team that qualified for worlds (and unfortunately we didn't, even though 

we won Ha ha :)) was pinning us I believe (127C). I was hoping to get some clarification upon 

the rules of pinning and if this was considered pinning (we did count to 5 seconds, so if this is 

then they were pinning):confused::confused:. Thank you and good luck. ;);) 

-vegas822 

(I posted a video of the match. The link is below.) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFPHOv4iwEA 

Unfortunately from the angle displayed, it's impossible to tell if what occurred from the 1:12 to 

1:18 mark of the video was Pinning/Trapping. 

Re: Answered: I think there needs to be some clarification on pinning 

Posted by vegas822 at 02/27/2013 07:01:31 am 

Ok thanks, next time I'll try to get a better angle of what is going on all around the field. 

Re: Answered: I think there needs to be some clarification on pinning 


Ok thanks, next time I'll try to get a better angle of what is going on all around the field. 



Answered: PSI gauge 

Answered: PSI gauge 

Posted by Nebraska Nerd Herd at 02/19/2013 02:28:36 pm 

Would a PSI gauge be legal to use in competition? 

Re: PSI gauge 


Would a PSI gauge be legal to use in competition? 

There is no PSI gauge in the VEX Robotics Design System, thus such a device would not be 

Page 200 of 238

legal for competition use. 


Answered: More Clarification on G11 

Answered: More Clarification on G11 




So say someone has a robot that is both a scorer and blocker... 

Let's say a scoring robot that also has the capability to expand and covering 3 out of the 4 

troughs. 

This robot goes to score a bunch of points into a trough in the first minute or so of the match.. 

then as soon as it is winning by enough sacks.. it expands and covers 3 out of 4 troughs.. Is 

the scoring section of the robot: the original 18x18x18 section of the robot protected from 

damage once it expands? Basically are they only allowed to damage the expanding part of the 

robot? This is basically just to protect them from breaking the robots cortex, pistons, and 

motors.. 

Also another question I had.. the definition of pinning says that a robot must be in contact with 

the foam playing surface and another field element. So if a blue robot fit on a red robots 

spatula and the red robot drives under the blue robot so that no part of the robot is touching 

the foam tile. And then pushes the robot up against a field element... would this be breaking 

any rules...? 

Re: More Clarification on G11 


So say someone has a robot that is both a scorer and blocker... 

Let's say a scoring robot that also has the capability to expand and covering 3 out of the 4 

troughs. 

This robot goes to score a bunch of points into a trough in the first minute or so of the match.. 

then as soon as it is winning by enough sacks.. it expands and covers 3 out of 4 troughs.. Is 

the scoring section of the robot: the original 18x18x18 section of the robot protected from 

damage once it expands? Basically are they only allowed to damage the expanding part of the 

robot? This is basically just to protect them from breaking the robots cortex, pistons, and 

motors.. 

Any robot which expands in order to obstruct the field should be built to withstand vigorous 

interaction. These situations will be evaluated on a case by case basis. Teams should expect 

opposing teams to use force to try and get through the obstruction. 

Also another question I had.. the definition of pinning says that a robot must be in contact with 

the foam playing surface and another field element. So if a blue robot fit on a red robots 

Page 201 of 238



spatula and the red robot drives under the blue robot so that no part of the robot is touching 

the foam tile. And then pushes the robot up against a field element... would this be breaking 

any rules...? 

Yes. Any intentional lifting of an opposing robot would be categorized as intentional 

entanglement, thus would be illegal. 


Answered: Clarification on 3D Printed Parts 

Answered: Clarification on 3D Printed Parts 

Posted by Who at 02/19/2013 11:45:30 pm 

In a previous thread, the following ruling was given: 





Thanks 

No, these homemade gears would not be considered identical, thus not legal. 

A teammate interpreted this as they wanted to print gears of different dimensions, I interpreted 

this as a blanket ban on printed parts, so to clarify: 

If parts with the exact same dimensions are printed using the same kind of plastic as VEX 

parts, would these be legal or illegal? (If the ruling is different by part, we plan to print spacers, 

but we want a ruling on all parts) 

In the manual it is rule R7b: 

Any parts which are identical to legal VEX parts. For the purposes of this rule, products which 


determine whether a component is “identical” to an official VEX component 

Re: Clarification on 3D Printed Parts 


In a previous thread, the following ruling was given: 

A teammate interpreted this as they wanted to print gears of different dimensions, I interpreted 

this as a blanket ban on printed parts, so to clarify: 

If parts with the exact same dimensions are printed using the same kind of plastic as VEX 

parts, would these be legal or illegal? (If the ruling is different by part, we plan to print spacers, 

but we want a ruling on all parts) 

3D printed parts would not be considered identical to VEX parts, even if the dimensions were 

the same. 


Answered: SG9 Question 

Page 202 of 238

Answered: SG9 Question 


Would a robot as pictured in the attachement be legal? 



The distance between the wheels is wide enough that the robot can only interact with the 

trough post as pictured in figure 8-10 of SG9 rule. 

Re: SG9 Question 


Would a robot as pictured in the attachement be legal? 

The distance between the wheels is wide enough that the robot can only interact with the 

trough post as pictured in figure 8-10 of SG9 rule. 



Answered: Few questions 

Answered: Few questions 

Posted by RDFZ_Robotics at 02/21/2013 08:27:28 am 

Hello Karthik! There are some questions that I want to ask you: 

1.As shown in the picture, the blue line represents a piece of anti-slip mat, the black line 

represent metal parts and the green dot represent the sacks. In clause 1 the mat is loose. In 

clause 2 the mat is stretched which makes it very tight. In clause 3 the sacks are on the metal 

parts and the metal parts are inches above the trough. In clause 4 the metal parts are right 

above the trough and the sacks are also on the metal structure. So my question is: are the 

sacks counted scored in each situation after a match? (According the the definition of scored, 

it must remain in a Scored position, if/when all Robots were removed from the field. The 

Scoring Object must not be supported by the Robot.) 

http://flic.kr/p/dWyjjZ 

2. Does any of the following situations violates ? In clause 5, the metal structure is right 

above the trough and in clause the metal parts are inches above.(No sacks are in the trough) 

http://flic.kr/p/dWyjzM 

3. The purple thing is my robot. The black rectangle is the structure the supports the trough. 

Does clause 8 violates ? 

http://flic.kr/p/dWyjrH 

Thanks! 

PS:If you can't see the images, here are the links: 



Page 203 of 238


Few questions 




4.In clause 9, the arm of the robot is covering the trough. In clause 10, the arm is inches above 

the trough but still covering the trough. Does any of those situations violates ? And 

would whether the robot is scoring affect the final decision of the referees? 

http://flic.kr/p/dX89fj 

PIC:http://flic.kr/p/dX89fj 

Re: Few questions 


1.As shown in the picture, the blue line represents a piece of anti-slip mat, the black line 

represent metal parts and the green dot represent the sacks. In clause 1 the mat is loose. In 

clause 2 the mat is stretched which makes it very tight. In clause 3 the sacks are on the metal 

parts and the metal parts are inches above the trough. In clause 4 the metal parts are right 

above the trough and the sacks are also on the metal structure. So my question is: are the 

sacks counted scored in each situation after a match? (According the the definition of scored, 

it must remain in a Scored position, if/when all Robots were removed from the field. The 

Scoring Object must not be supported by the Robot.) 

In all four photos, the Sacks would be considered to be supported by the robot, thus they 

would not be Scored. 

http://flic.kr/p/dWyjjZ2. Does any of the following situations violates ? In clause 5, the 

metal structure is right above the trough and in clause the metal parts are inches above.(No 

sacks are in the trough) 

From this limited depiction, it's impossible to tell if this device would be ruled to be grasping to 

grappling the trough. For safety, I would recommend removing the shorter section of metal, to 

avoid any scrutiny under . 


3. The purple thing is my robot. The black rectangle is the structure the supports the trough. 

Does clause 8 violates ? 

From this limited depiction, it's impossible to tell if this device would be ruled to be grasping to 

grappling the trough's support. However, in general this type of design is usually legal, 

depending on the exact implementation. 


Thanks! 

PS:If you can't see the images, here are the links: 


Page 204 of 238



Re: Few questions 




4.In clause 9, the arm of the robot is covering the trough. In clause 10, the arm is inches above 

the trough but still covering the trough. Does any of those situations violates ? And 

would whether the robot is scoring affect the final decision of the referees? 

http://flic.kr/p/dX89fj 

PIC:http://flic.kr/p/dX89fj 

No, these situations do not violate 

Re: Answered: Few questions 


Thanks Karthik! Those replies are brief and clear! 

Re: Answered: Few questions 




Answered: Clarification on "Shovel Entanglement" 

Answered: Clarification on "Shovel Entanglement" 

Posted by Squid at 02/22/2013 10:18:46 pm 

Hello, Karthik, 

As per the ruling on this post about shovels 

(http://www.vexforum.com/showthread.php?t=74930), Driving on top of a robot, immobilizing it 

and not rectifying the situation would be considered intentional entanglement. 

In addition, states that that pose unnecessary risk of entanglement are not allowed. 

And , states Robots which have expanded horizontally in an effort to obstruct the field 

will undergo even more scrutiny under , and will not be protected under . 

Suppose Robot A has a “skirt” of Lexan that could functionally serve as a shovel, that is, able 

to intake sacks. This skirt covers the perimeter of the said robot, and is lowered onto the field 

at the start of the match. 

Robot B is a generic, mobile robot. 

Robot A decides to park and remain stationary on the field, and has no intention of moving for 

the remainder of the match. Robot B then drives over Robot A’s skirt. 

a.Would Robot B be penalized for intentional entanglement as per your previous ruling? Or, 

since Robot A has no intention of moving, and is thus “immobilized”, an entanglement would 

not be called? If no, would Robot A attempting to move lead to Robot B being penalized for 

Page 205 of 238

entanglement? 



b.Would Robot A be called out for having a mechanism that poses an unnecessary risk of 

entanglement as per ? 

c.Would Robot A’s skirt be ruled as an expansion to obstruct the field, since it chooses to 

remain in one place with its skirt at risk of being driven over, and lose protection from ? 

Thank you in advance, I know ruling off of a hypothetical situation can be murky, but I can’t 

think of a better way to explain this. 

Re: Clarification on "Shovel Entanglement" 


a. Would Robot B be penalized for intentional entanglement as per your previous ruling? Or, 

since Robot A has no intention of moving, and is thus “immobilized”, an entanglement would 

not be called? If no, would Robot A attempting to move lead to Robot B being penalized for 

entanglement? 

There would be no call for entanglement here, until it was demonstrated that Robot A was 

trying to move from under Robot B, and was unable to. 

b. Would Robot A be called out for having a mechanism that poses an unnecessary risk of 

entanglement as per ? No, this would not be considered an unnecessary risk of 

entanglement. 

c. Would Robot A’s skirt be ruled as an expansion to obstruct the field, since it chooses to 

remain in one place with its skirt at risk of being driven over, and lose protection from ? 

No, it would not. 

Re: Answered: Clarification on "Shovel Entanglement" 

Posted by Squid at 02/25/2013 09:44:12 pm 

Alright, thank you for your time, Karthik 

Re: Answered: Clarification on "Shovel Entanglement" 




Answered: Use of Y cables on LED's 

Answered: Use of Y cables on LED's 


Is it legal to use Y cables on digital outputs to power LED's 

If so, can you Y cable a Y cable to power more than 2 from a single port. 

Page 206 of 238



I know that only one per port can be used for motors, but is it different for digital outs? 

Re: Use of Y cables on LED's 


Is it legal to use Y cables on digital outputs to power LED's 

If so, can you Y cable a Y cable to power more than 2 from a single port. 

Yes, this would be legal to do for the powering of LED's. 



Answered: <R7e> Clarification 


Hi Karthik, 

e. states 

Any non-aerosol based grease, when used in extreme moderation on surfaces and 

locations 

that do NOT come into contact with the playing field walls, foam field surface, game objects, or 

other robots. 

Are we allowed to use Chapstick as a "grease" on our robot? We did some testing and it 

actually works very well. 

Thanks! 

Robert 

Re: <R7e> Clarification 


Are we allowed to use Chapstick as a "grease" on our robot? We did some testing and it 

actually works very well. 

Umm. Yes, you may use Chapstick as "grease" on your robot. However, please do not use the 

stick on your robot, and then on your lips... 


Answered: Field Tiles - Smooth Side Up 

Answered: Field Tiles - Smooth Side Up 

Posted by UKAdam at 02/24/2013 09:39:07 pm 

The "smooth" side of the tiles should be up, and the textured side down. the tiles should be 

assembled "in-place", within the field perimeter. 

Page 207 of 238



We recently competed at a tournament who had set up the field with the textured side up, 

against the quoted rule in Appendix A. Many of the teams attending had competed before and 

offered to help to correct the situation, as it affected driving and autonomous; however the 

event was not willing to correct the situation. 

If this was to happen again what is the recommended procedure to get the situation 

corrected? And do teams have the 'right' to properly set up fields. 

Re: Field Tiles - Smooth Side Up 


We recently competed at a tournament who had set up the field with the textured side up, 

against the quoted rule in Appendix A. Many of the teams attending had competed before and 

offered to help to correct the situation, as it affected driving and autonomous; however the 

event was not willing to correct the situation. 

If this was to happen again what is the recommended procedure to get the situation 

corrected? And do teams have the 'right' to properly set up fields. 

If this happens at an event you are attending, politely let the head referee know that the field is 

set up incorrectly. If that person is not willing to rectify the situation, try discussing with the 

Event Partner. 


Answered: Powder Coating 

Answered: Powder Coating 

Posted by ttakashima at 02/25/2013 02:04:29 am 

Is it legal to have our whole robots metal structure powder coated (Drive train, superstructure 

and game piece manipulator)? 

Re: Powder Coating 


Is it legal to have our whole robots metal structure powder coated (Drive train, superstructure 

and game piece manipulator)? 

Yes, this is legal. Please see for full details. 

Anodizing and painting of parts would be considered a legal nonfunctional decoration 


Answered: [VRCC] LED Lighting Through Custom Electronics 

Answered: [VRCC] LED Lighting Through Custom Electronics 

Posted by Nick Lawrence at 02/25/2013 06:29:29 am 

Would it be legal to have LED strips on a College Division robot that provide feedback to the 

driver(s) so long as they were powered by custom electronics (example, VEX Spike + VEX 

9.6V battery,) and controlled to turn on and off by the CORTEX? They would not be used for 

blinding other teams, simply a visual feedback to our team. 

Page 208 of 238

-Nick 

Re: [VRCC] LED Lighting Through Custom Electronics 




Would it be legal to have LED strips on a College Division robot that provide feedback to the 

driver(s) so long as they were powered by custom electronics (example, VEX Spike + VEX 

9.6V battery,) and controlled to turn on and off by the CORTEX? They would not be used for 

blinding other teams, simply a visual feedback to our team. 


Re: Answered: [VRCC] LED Lighting Through Custom Electronics 

Posted by Nick Lawrence at 02/26/2013 02:45:51 pm 

Awesome! Thank you, Karthik. 

- Nick 

Re: Answered: [VRCC] LED Lighting Through Custom Electronics 




Answered: One Last Locking to Field Thread 

Answered: One Last Locking to Field Thread 

Posted by AndrewRemmers1902 at 02/27/2013 01:26:44 am 

Yesterday a robot was posted on the forums and the VEX community seems to be in debate of 

whether it is legal or not. 

*Disclaimer* Normally I hate doing this to a specific team and normally am not one to call out a 

specific team on a public forum for being illegal. But due to the possible outcomes of this one 

team I think its best to post here and get things cleared up about these "Trough Blockers". I 

also will be explaining my logic as to why this is illegal for everyone to see. 

I start out with the rule 

Robots may not intentionally grasp, grapple or attach to any Field Elements. Strategies with 


field element are prohibited. (See figures 8-10) The intent of this rule is to prevent teams from 

both 


this rule will result in a Disqualification. 

Now the first thing that I want to address about this robot is the fact that its all passive scissor 

lifts can not be retracted. They can be pivoted on an arm but in one instance that arm has 

limited movement due to the center post for the High Goal. 

Page 209 of 238

Zoomed in picture of this instance. 

http://i.imgur.com/0ixLn4f.jpg 


According to the image attached to SG9 this would be illegal. 

Image attached. 


http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/860407_10151257487170728_78869970_o.jpg 

This would create the scenario in the middle of the picture. 

But I am a curious person, and would like to know if the rest of the robot would fall under this 

category for using a powered device to intentionally attach to the field. 

In this thread: 


More specifically this picture 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/93415879@N03/8500082022 

You said this does not violate SG9, however I think there is missing information from the 

picture. 

http://i.imgur.com/PVOkZVF.png 

In my modification to the picture I added the Trough Supports that seperate each trough (or at 

least a rough sketch). 

If you were to have a device that was to expand far enough to extend further than both Trough 

Dividers much like what is shown in the following picture 

http://i.imgur.com/wc9lhLN.jpg 

Could this then be considered "latching" as according to the middle scenario under SG9 since 

it is covering 3 sides of a field element? If so what happens, would the team be required to not 

use said device as long as the "latching" action still exists? Or would the team be given a 

warning and then be DQed every time they used this mechanism? (considering it is considered 

latching) 

Some would argue the robot can move back and fourth a few inches its not considered 

latching, and the device its self is on an arm, and that the arm could be moved to remove the 

latching effect but this only happens when the team decides they want to. So that being said if 

the device is considered "latching or grasping" then the device would be intentionally latching 

Page 210 of 238

ased on this assumption. 



If this is all considered illegal then this robot has both a) an active latching system (on the 

trough dividers themselves) and b) a passive latching system (On the High Goal Post). 

I would just like to clear the air on this subject so that teams who pursue this kind of design 

know exactly what could happen if they do not take all of the rules into consideration. 

Original Thread in question: http://www.vexforum.com/showthread.php?t=75993 

Sorry for the long winded post Karthik 

- Andrew 

Re: One Last Locking to Field Thread 


Don't worry about the long winded post. Unfortunately, I only have a short answer. Without 

examining the mechanism in detail, it's impossible to tell if they have latched onto the field and 

violated . My gut instinct is that the robot has not latched or anchored itself to the field, 

but it's hard to evaluate without a closer look. 



Don't worry about the long winded post. Unfortunately, I only have a short answer. Without 

examining the mechanism in detail, it's impossible to tell if they have latched onto the field and 

violated . My gut instinct is that the robot has not latched or anchored itself to the field, 

but it's hard to evaluate without a closer look. 


I'd like to apologize to the team involved if this seemed like a threat to get their robot 

disqualified, this was not my intention. My intention is to make sure that all teams follow the 

same set of rules and there is fair play. Having had this concept from day one, we knew we 

would have to take extra scrutiny to make sure the robot did not have any signs of latching, 

passive or active. 

Sincere apologies for calling you out on a Q&A, I felt it had to be done. 

- Andrew 




I'd like to apologize to the team involved if this seemed like a threat to get their robot 

disqualified, this was not my intention. My intention is to make sure that all teams follow the 

same set of rules and there is fair play. Having had this concept from day one, we knew we 

would have to take extra scrutiny to make sure the robot did not have any signs of latching, 

Page 211 of 238

passive or active. 



Sincere apologies for calling you out on a Q&A, I felt it had to be done. 

- Andrew 

It was a well thought out question. All the points you made were valid, however it's nearly 

impossible for us to issue any sort of blanket ruling without being able to fully scrutinize the 

robot. We will be watching very carefully for signs of latching at Worlds, especially teams who 

try and wrap around the High Goal pose and the Trough stanchions. 


Answered: Robot expansion and 

Answered: Robot expansion and <SG3> 


Please evaluate the following situation and specify whether a disqualification for pinning would 

result after the first five seconds of the driver controlled period. 

An elastic powered red robot expands across the field blocking the troughs within the first few 

seconds of autonomous. At the same time, an opponent robot drives into the path of the 

expansion. The blue robot is sandwiched between the red robot and the wall of the field. The 

expansion cannot be reversed. 

http://www.vexforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7257&stc=1&d=1362150185 

What would be the ruling if: 

a. The blue robot is unable to get free. 

b. The blue robot is able to get free but chooses not to. 




Pin or Trap, a team may not Pin or Trap the same Robot again for a duration of 5 seconds. If a 









Re: Robot expansion and <SG3> 


What would be the ruling if: 

a. The blue robot is unable to get free. 

Page 212 of 238

. The blue robot is able to get free but chooses not to. 



a. If the Blue Robot is unable to get free, this would be pinning, and would be subject to a 

disqualification. 

b. If the Blue Robot is able to get free but chooses not to, this would not be violation of the 

pinning rule. A team cannot just sit there and remain immobile by choice in hopes of forcing a 

disqualification. 


Answered: clarification, as well as another question about wallbots 

Answered: <SG9> clarification, as well as another question about wallbots 

Posted by Warrior5 at 03/01/2013 03:43:16 pm 

Hi Karthik, 

First, just a few clarifications on 


with 


field 





1. How long must you latch on to something for it to be illegal. In other words, is it illegal as 

soon as the latching begins, after an extended period, or only if it's permanent. 

2. For example, if a robot grabbed the post under the trough and pulled itself forward, then 

unhooked, would it be illegal? 

I'm guessing it would be but I wanted to check. 

Re: <SG9> clarification, as well as another question about wallbots 


1. How long must you latch on to something for it to be illegal. In other words, is it illegal as 

soon as the latching begins, after an extended period, or only if it's permanent. 

2. For example, if a robot grabbed the post under the trough and pulled itself forward, then 

unhooked, would it be illegal? 

I'm guessing it would be but I wanted to check. 

1. If a team latches on to a Field Element, but then immediately rectifies the situation, this 

would not be a violation. All other cases would be a violation. 

2. This would be illegal. 


Answered: Fixing Robot after it has left and came back in autonomous 

Answered: Fixing Robot after it has left and came back in autonomous 


We were at a local competition last weekend and we came upon a descrepency in the rules. 

Page 213 of 238



The match started, the robot did its autonomous and came back to the starting tile. The 

autonomous ended and we had no problems. As soon as driver control started, we found out 

that our robot wasn't working. I looked and saw that it wasn't connected through VEXnet. I 

power cycled the joystick. After it wouldn't connect, I asked the head ref if I could power cycle 

my cortex. The robot was touching the starting tile, and I wouldn't have to move it to get to the 

power switch. The ref said no. 

I have read and and feel like it is a little vague. states that "During the 

driver control period, Drivers and Coaches may handle their own robots as long as it has never 

left the alliance starting tile. The intent of this rule is to allow teams to fix robots that were 

unable to move at the start of the match." 

I read this as "as long as the robot has never left the starting tile during driver control period." 

Was the ref right in not allowing me to touch the robot, or was he interpreting this rule wrong? 

Re: Fixing Robot after it has left and came back in autonomous 


We were at a local competition last weekend and we came upon a descrepency in the rules. 

The match started, the robot did its autonomous and came back to the starting tile. The 

autonomous ended and we had no problems. As soon as driver control started, we found out 

that our robot wasn't working. I looked and saw that it wasn't connected through VEXnet. I 

power cycled the joystick. After it wouldn't connect, I asked the head ref if I could power cycle 

my cortex. The robot was touching the starting tile, and I wouldn't have to move it to get to the 

power switch. The ref said no. 

I have read and and feel like it is a little vague. states that "During the 

driver control period, Drivers and Coaches may handle their own robots as long as it has never 

left the alliance starting tile. The intent of this rule is to allow teams to fix robots that were 

unable to move at the start of the match." 

I read this as "as long as the robot has never left the starting tile during driver control period." 

Was the ref right in not allowing me to touch the robot, or was he interpreting this rule wrong? 

The referee was correct. During the Driver Controlled Period, you may not interact with any 

robot which as left the Alliance Starting Tile at any point during the match. 




Posted by Ephemeral_Being at 03/03/2013 05:37:12 am 

Rule states that 

 

Page 214 of 238






in ANY way. 

Our team is experiencing problems with the IME we have mounted on one of our wheels. It 

has been suggested to us by several teams and engineers at events that it is possible our 

robot is generating large amounts of static electricity by running wheels against the foam tiles, 

and it has no way to discharge this as no metal elements ever connect with the field. 

We have a plan to essentially isolate this motor from the frame of our robot with plastic 

spacers and long screws. We also intended to remove the plastic coating from one of our 

(broken) two wire extension cables, loop it around the spinning axle attached to the motor and 

wheel, and also anchor it to the frame of the robot. To us, this seems like it would prevent the 

buildup of static electricity that is currently thought to be interfering with the IME from the other 

base motors while also discharging any that may buildup as a result of this wheel in particular. 

If this is not a legal use of a wire, can you please direct us to a troubleshooting guide for the 

IME's? We're looking right now without much success. 



Rule states that 

 




in ANY way. 

Our team is experiencing problems with the IME we have mounted on one of our wheels. It 

has been suggested to us by several teams and engineers at events that it is possible our 

robot is generating large amounts of static electricity by running wheels against the foam tiles, 

and it has no way to discharge this as no metal elements ever connect with the field. 

We have a plan to essentially isolate this motor from the frame of our robot with plastic 

spacers and long screws. We also intended to remove the plastic coating from one of our 

(broken) two wire extension cables, loop it around the spinning axle attached to the motor and 

wheel, and also anchor it to the frame of the robot. To us, this seems like it would prevent the 

buildup of static electricity that is currently thought to be interfering with the IME from the other 

base motors while also discharging any that may buildup as a result of this wheel in particular. 

If this is not a legal use of a wire, can you please direct us to a troubleshooting guide for the 

IME's? We're looking right now without much success. 

Page 215 of 238



No, this is not a legal use of wire. Based on our testing, it also does not seem to help fix the 

problem. 

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an easy fix for us to recommend to users who 

encounter this issue -- if it was as simple as a dragger chain or daisy-chain terminator, we 

would already be providing these to customers. We recommend that users experiencing static 

problems spray their field tiles with a coating of anti-static spray. At VEX World Championship, 

every field will be treated with Techspray 1726-QT (available from mouser.com). This seems 

to greatly reduce the likelihood of an ESD incident. 

Re: Answered: Clarification on <R15> 


Okay, then. We'll stop worrying about the problem. 

Thanks for looking into it. 

Re: Answered: Clarification on <R15> 


Okay, then. We'll stop worrying about the problem. 

Thanks for looking into it. 




Answered: Clarification on <G11> 


During the Indiana State Championship semifinals, our robot was tipped over while we were 

guarding our trough. The other team basically pushed our team's robot over, and it looked 

accidental (I suppose), but it was clearly an attempt to get us out of the way so that they could 

descore. They pushed us over by repeatedly attempting to shove our robot's scoring 

mechanism back. The contact was definitely not minor and had it been, our robot would not 

have fallen over. It was ruled that this act was (by definition) legal, and I am inclined to agree 

because we were the defensive robot and therefore the offensive robot is to be sided with. 

However, after the match, the other team apologized for tipping us over and that they had to 

tip us in order to guarantee a win. This makes this tipping evident that it was done on purpose. 

My question is whether the tipping is still legal, and if it is illegal, should there have been a DQ 

or something else? Obviously, I'm not going to try and redo that match, but I am wondering for 

potential future references. 

I would like to add that our robot is not a robot designed for defensive strategies and guarding 

a trough essentially involves us putting our scoring mechanism on top of the trough, as best 

we can. 



My question is whether the tipping is still legal, and if it is illegal, should there have been a DQ 

Page 216 of 238

or something else? 



Intentional tipping is still illegal. We cannot comment on the specific situation, as there has not 

been enough information presented to issue any sort of ruling. 



Intentional tipping is still illegal. We cannot comment on the specific situation, as there has not 

been enough information presented to issue any sort of ruling. 

Thanks for the reply! I certainly won't be crying home about this one, as we've already qualified 

for Worlds. 



Thanks for the reply! I certainly won't be crying home about this one, as we've already qualified 

for Worlds. 



Clarification on Entanglement, Tipping and Permanent Damage 

Clarification on Entanglement, Tipping and Permanent Damage 


Hi Karthik, 

My team (1492 WASABI) had concerns about a specific ruling at the Western Washington 

Tournament that was held yesterday. As some background information, 1492A captained an 

alliance and lost Semifinal 2-1 due to a DQ (we completely agree with the DQ). 

Semifinal 2-2 pertaining to most of my questions can be found here: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWIO2-DHg6U 

Specific questions relating to the comments above them regarding the specific situations are 

bolded for your convenience. 

Key points in the video: 

1. From 0:43 to 0:51, the blue alliance shovel robot drives their shovel under the red alliance 

roller robot. While it is hard to see in the video, after conversing with the red alliance robot's 

driver, he said that he was unable to escape the situation by driving backwards because he 

had no wheels touching the ground (best seen around 0:46-0:47 where the left side of the 

drivetrain is completely off the ground and the right side is leaning on the metal instead of the 

wheels). According to this previous Q&A http://www.vexforum.com/showthread.php?t=75931, 

specifically your second answer: 

Would this be ruled as intentional entanglement thus leading to a DQ and disabling of the 

offending robot? 

Page 217 of 238



2. From 1:55 to 1:59, the same blue alliance shovel robot drives their shovel into 1492A and 

first pushes them backwards onto their anti-tipping mechanism (the two standoffs out the back 

of the robot). At this point, 1492A has no wheels on the ground and is unable to escape from 

the situation. 

Would this be considered intentional tipping/entanglement if the blue shovel robot stays in this 

position but does not complete the tip? 

3. From 1:59 to 2:02, the blue alliance shovel robot continues pushing 1492A backwards until 

their anti-tip mechanism gives out and 1492A falls onto their back. This ended up completely 

wrecking 1492A's lift system (broken gears and bent axles). This case of intentional tipping 

and the impending DQ was called by the referees, not immediately, but after the match was 

over. 

However, our problem with all of this was that 1492A would have won the match even without 

the DQ call, but the intentional tipping of 1492A forced 1492A to rush to try and repair their 

robot for Semifinal 2-3. Even with their 3 minute timeout, they were unable to finish repairing 

the arm system in time. 1492A was forced to play their 2nd and 3rd teams in Semifinal 2-3 

against the 1st and 2nd teams of the opposing alliance. As a result, 1492A's alliance lost the 

match and the whole Semifinal. 

Another thing to note is that 1492A asked the referees for more time to repair their robot (a few 

more minutes), but the head referee responded by paraphrasing a part of "However, 

VEX Sack Attack is an interactive game. Some incidental tipping, Entanglement, and damage 

may occur as a part of normal game play" and telling us that 1492A should have been built to 

withstand "minor interaction." We understand that competitions must remain on time, but isn't a 

few minutes waiting worth a fair semifinals match? Our question for this third key point: 

Should extra time be given for repairs after permanent damage has been dealt to a robot after 

a case of intentional or egregious tipping, entanglement or other form of vigorous interaction? 

More questions pertaining to multiple points in the video and also other clarifications: 

Would this case of tipping be called as both intentional AND egregious or only intentional? 

Looking at points 1 and 2 in the video, should the offending blue robot have been disabled 

before the actual tip occurred (point 3)? 

Since the referees allowed the blue robot to continue driving through the earlier offenses on 

team 1495 (point 1) and 1492A (point 2) eventually resulting in their DQ in point 3, should this 

be ruled as multiple offenses of entanglement/tipping and result in a DQ from the whole 

tournament? 

In the case that a robot on an elimination alliance is disqualified from the entire tournament, 

does that disqualify the whole alliance as well in later elimination sets, since the alliance would 

not be able to field all three of their teams in a set of elimination matches? 

Page 218 of 238

Apologies for the long Q&A and thanks as always Karthik! 



Re: Clarification on Entanglement, Tipping and Permanent Damage 


Hi Karthik, 

Not sure about the guidelines on bumping threads but it's been more than a week since this 

Q&A was posted and it's the only unanswered thread currently. 

As always, thanks so much for everything you do! 


Answered: Modifying 2 pin wires to prevent IME CPU crash 

Answered: Modifying 2 pin wires to prevent IME CPU crash 


Hi, Karthik 

It has probably came to your attention that many users are having issues with static electricity 

and IME's crashing the Cortex.. 

The reason behind this is due to the method the IME's are hooked up. Via dasiy chaining. This 

always leaves one 4 wire port completely exposed and provides a perfect path for static to 

travel, no matter how many IME's you use. 

Now this can be prevented by plugging the port and covering the exposed pins... 

So a few questions I hope you will make exceptions on.. 

1) Would It be legal to use tape to cover the IME port..? 

2) Due to the high cost of 4 wire cables would it be legal to slightly modify ( trim the locking 

tab) off of two 2 wire extension cables to cover the port.. as long as you only trimmed the 

plastic and the wires were not plugged into anything. You would also have to explain to the 

inspectors the nature of the wires... 

3) Could you make any of these a requirement for worlds to prevent damage to everyone's 

robots? I am sure many people would hate to beat another team because of a slight product 

malfunction... 

4) Could you speak with JVN about including covers for the exposed 4 wire ports? And 

possibly handing them out at worlds? The cost of plastic would be minuscule and prevent tons 

of damage to robots... 

Thanks! 

Re: Modifying 2 pin wires to prevent IME CPU crash 


Page 219 of 238

Hi, Karthik 



It has probably came to your attention that many users are having issues with static electricity 

and IME's crashing the Cortex.. 

The reason behind this is due to the method the IME's are hooked up. Via dasiy chaining. This 

always leaves one 4 wire port completely exposed and provides a perfect path for static to 

travel, no matter how many IME's you use. 

Now this can be prevented by plugging the port and covering the exposed pins... 

So a few questions I hope you will make exceptions on.. 

1) Would It be legal to use tape to cover the IME port..? 

2) Due to the high cost of 4 wire cables would it be legal to slightly modify ( trim the locking 

tab) off of two 2 wire extension cables to cover the port.. as long as you only trimmed the 

plastic and the wires were not plugged into anything. You would also have to explain to the 

inspectors the nature of the wires... 

3) Could you make any of these a requirement for worlds to prevent damage to everyone's 

robots? I am sure many people would hate to beat another team because of a slight product 

malfunction... 

4) Could you speak with JVN about including covers for the exposed 4 wire ports? And 

possibly handing them out at worlds? The cost of plastic would be minuscule and prevent tons 

of damage to robots... 

Thanks 

1. Yes this is legal, though based on our testing it does not have any appreciable impact on 

the resistance to an ESD event (we don't think it helps). 

2. Yes this is legal, though... same as above, it doesn't seem to help much. 

3. We will be spraying every field at VEX World Championship with Techspray 1726-QT 

(available from mouser.com) this anti-static spray greatly reduces the likelihood of an ESD 

event. Our testing has unfortunately shown that there is no easy fix for us to recommend to 

users who encounter this issue. 

4. John and the rest of the VEX Robotics engineering team are working on it, but as said 

above, there isn't any simple solution available yet to help individual teams. He tells me that 

the static spray should all but eliminate the issue at VEX World Championship. 


Answered: Powering off joysticks during autonomous 

Page 220 of 238

Answered: Powering off joysticks during autonomous 

Posted by rikreddy at 03/12/2013 06:02:43 am 



At a recent tournament, our robot had what we believe to be electrostatic discharge IME 

problems during three matches that caused our autonomous program to drive endlessly into 

the field perimeter, stalling our drive motors in one match. These autonomous malfunctions 

were solved by power cycling the Cortex, without redownloading any code. 






allowed in 

Rule states that Drivers and Coaches may not interact with the robot while it is not 

touching their own Alliance Starting Tile. 

Would turning off the joystick to end the robot’s autonomous motion constitute illegal 

interaction with the robot, even though it is not physical? If so, can you suggest an acceptable 

way to deal with a malfunctioning autonomous routine? As much as we hope that our 

problems will disappear at events with anti-static spray, we’d like to have an alternative 

solution, if possible. 


Re: Powering off joysticks during autonomous 


Would turning off the joystick to end the robot’s autonomous motion constitute illegal 

interaction with the robot, even though it is not physical? If so, can you suggest an acceptable 

way to deal with a malfunctioning autonomous routine? As much as we hope that our 

problems will disappear at events with anti-static spray, we’d like to have an alternative 

solution, if possible. 

Yes, this would be legal, as you are not interacting with the robot. However, simply turning off 

the Joystick most likely not stop the fault condition created by static discharge affecting the 

IMEs. 

Re: Answered: Powering off joysticks during autonomous 

Posted by rikreddy at 03/13/2013 02:08:55 am 

Thanks for the quick response, Karthik! 

Re: Answered: Powering off joysticks during autonomous 


Thanks for the quick response, Karthik 


Page 221 of 238


Answered: Modifying Polycarbonate 

Answered: Modifying Polycarbonate 

Posted by DaveP at 03/13/2013 08:00:09 pm 



We were curious if sanding the polycarbonate in order to achieve more friction on the sacks 

was legal. In the official game rules, it looks as if physical changes are legal, while chemical 

are not, of which sanding is a physical change. We would just hate to bring a robot to 

competition with sanded polycarbonate and fail to pass inspection. Any feedback would be 

appreciated. Thanks! 

Re: Modifying Polycarbonate 


We were curious if sanding the polycarbonate in order to achieve more friction on the sacks 

was legal. In the official game rules, it looks as if physical changes are legal, while chemical 

are not, of which sanding is a physical change. We would just hate to bring a robot to 

competition with sanded polycarbonate and fail to pass inspection. Any feedback would be 

appreciated. Thanks 

Sanding of the allowed polycarbonate would be a legal modification. 


Answered: College Driver Eligibility Clarification 



Appendix F College Challenge, Rule 6 states: 







Referring back to a previous post and reply: 


The question was asked: 

"Does this mean that high school students taking college courses while still at high school are 

eligible to drive? And if so, students taking college courses online? (for example edx.org)." 

The reply was: 

"Yes, this would be legal." 

Will you please clarify whether the example of edx.org given in the question is considered to 

be a post-secondary school? I understand that edx.org is an open-learning enterprise 

research project (MOOC) offering a sample of courses for the purposes of studying how 

technology transforms learning. What makes them unique is that there are Harvard and MIT 

Page 222 of 238



professors tied to the courses, and they grant certificates for successful completion of a 

course. However, there is no admissions process; anyone with an Internet connection may 

sign up for a course. Students taking courses are not considered to be college students of 

Harvard or MIT. Maybe this is the future of higher education, but for this competition, please 

clarify if participation is sufficient for driver eligibility. Thank you. 


























Re: College Driver Eligibility Clarification 










Page 223 of 238


















The original answer still stands. 

Re: College Driver Eligibility Clarification 























Page 224 of 238





The original answer still stands. 


Answered: Subsystems definition: "Majority of Field" 


Posted by RoboDesigners at 03/15/2013 01:17:42 am 

Inspired by the heated discussion in this thread, I wanted to receive clarification on the 

definitions of Robot Rule 1 subsystems (highlighted portions of the quote below are of special 

interest). 

Only one (1) robot will be allowed to compete per team in the VEX Robotics Competition. 

Though it is expected that teams will make changes to their robot at the competition, a team is 

limited to only one (1) robot. The VEX Robotics Design System is intended to be a mobile 

robotics design platform. As such, a VEX robot, for the purposes of the VRC, has the following 

subsystems: 

Subsystem 1: Mobile robotic base including wheels, tracks, legs, or any other mechanism that 

allows the robot to navigate the majority of the flat playing field surface. 

Subsystem 2: Power and control system that includes a VEX legal battery, a VEX control 

system, and associated motors for the mobile robotic base. 

Subsystem 3: Additional mechanisms (and associated motors) that allow manipulation of 

game objects or navigation of field obstacles. 

Participants in the referenced thread seem to be construing the wording of this rule to restrict 

robots to those that have been designed to "navigate the majority of the field," and prohibit 

those that are designed to navigate only a portion thereof. 

Thus, my question is, "Could Subsystem 1 be alternatively defined as: 'Mobile robotic base 

including wheels, tracks, legs, or any other mechanism used by the robot for the majority of its 

navigation of the flat playing field surface.'?" (see change in red.) This removes any confusion 

over whether the robot is required to be designed to traverse the majority of the field, but 

rather reflects (what I believe to be) the intent of the definition. 


Posted by RoboDesigners at 03/15/2013 01:17:42 am 

Inspired by the heated discussion in this thread, I wanted to receive clarification on the 

definitions of Robot Rule 1 subsystems (highlighted portions of the quote below are of special 

interest). 

Only one (1) robot will be allowed to compete per team in the VEX Robotics Competition. 

Though it is expected that teams will make changes to their robot at the competition, a team is 

limited to only one (1) robot. The VEX Robotics Design System is intended to be a mobile 

robotics design platform. As such, a VEX robot, for the purposes of the VRC, has the following 

subsystems: 

Page 225 of 238



Subsystem 1: Mobile robotic base including wheels, tracks, legs, or any other mechanism that 

allows the robot to navigate the majority of the flat playing field surface. 

Subsystem 2: Power and control system that includes a VEX legal battery, a VEX control 

system, and associated motors for the mobile robotic base. 

Subsystem 3: Additional mechanisms (and associated motors) that allow manipulation of 

game objects or navigation of field obstacles. 

Participants in the referenced thread seem to be construing the wording of this rule to restrict 

robots to those that have been designed to "navigate the majority of the field," and prohibit 

those that are designed to navigate only a portion thereof. 






Re: Subsystems definition: "Majority of Field" 







Yes, this interpretation is correct. Robots do not need to be designed to traverse the majority 

of the field. 

Re: Subsystems definition: "Majority of Field" 







Yes, this interpretation is correct. Robots do not need to be designed to traverse the majority 

of the field. 

Re: Answered: Subsystems definition: "Majority of Field" 

Posted by RoboDesigners at 03/19/2013 08:30:05 pm 

Thank you for your quick response! :) 

(I'm always amazed at how fast you field these Q&A's, even though it seems like we flood you 

with them all the time...) 

Page 226 of 238



Re: Answered: Subsystems definition: "Majority of Field" 

Posted by RoboDesigners at 03/19/2013 08:30:05 pm 

Thank you for your quick response! :) 

(I'm always amazed at how fast you field these Q&A's, even though it seems like we flood you 

with them all the time...) 


Answered: Can we.....? 



Karthik, 

It looks like there is going to be at least a handful of wallbots at the competition in Anaheim, 

and while I don't wish to pick on them or question their legality (that's between them and the 

judges) We do want to formulate a strategy should we be facing them in competition. 

With that being said, the robot in this video is a good example. 

Since it appears as though this robot will be on the left side of the alliance tile, We have a 

potential strategy but we are not sure if it would get us disqualified, and we would obviously 

rather lose than have a DQ! 

Now for the question. If the robot directly across from this wallbot were to move a bit to it's left 

and place it's spatula under the wallbots extension and lift it up to allow the alliance robot who 

would be on the left to cross under the lifted section would that be legal? If so, and the wallbot 

had some type of extension that caught the lip of the field perimeter would that be latching? 

I am certain that the wallbots have been thought out well enough to where crossing over them 

will be unlikely, so we want to have some type of strategy to prevent being stuck spending the 

1:45 placing sacks in our floor goal. 

Thanks! 



Karthik, 

It looks like there is going to be at least a handful of wallbots at the competition in Anaheim, 

and while I don't wish to pick on them or question their legality (that's between them and the 

judges) We do want to formulate a strategy should we be facing them in competition. 

With that being said, the robot in this video is a good example. 

Since it appears as though this robot will be on the left side of the alliance tile, We have a 

potential strategy but we are not sure if it would get us disqualified, and we would obviously 

rather lose than have a DQ! 

Page 227 of 238





would be on the left to cross under the lifted section would that be legal? If so, and the wallbot 

had some type of extension that caught the lip of the field perimeter would that be latching? 

I am certain that the wallbots have been thought out well enough to where crossing over them 

will be unlikely, so we want to have some type of strategy to prevent being stuck spending the 

1:45 placing sacks in our floor goal. 

Thanks! 

Re: Can we.....? 




would be on the left to cross under the lifted section would that be legal? 


If so, and the wallbot had some type of extension that caught the lip of the field perimeter 

would that be latching? 

We cannot issue a blanket ruling on this hypothetical situation. However, it does not sound like 

the latching would be intentional, thus it probably would not be a violation of . 

Re: Can we.....? 




would be on the left to cross under the lifted section would that be legal? 


If so, and the wallbot had some type of extension that caught the lip of the field perimeter 

would that be latching? 

We cannot issue a blanket ruling on this hypothetical situation. However, it does not sound like 

the latching would be intentional, thus it probably would not be a violation of . 


Answered: Eye Protection/Safety Glasses at Worlds? 


Page 228 of 238

Posted by blackiceskier at 03/18/2013 04:56:07 am 



I am just wondering how strictly enforced will be? I have not been to worlds in a few 

years and i am going with a rookie team this year. In the state of New Jersey we dont enforce 

goggles except if teams are using the old crystal controllers. So my main question is will we 

have to bring goggles to worlds this year? 

All team members, including coaches, must 

wear safety glasses or glasses with side shields while in the pit or alliance stations during 

matches. While in the pit area it is highly recommended that all 

team members wear safety glasses. (for reference) 


Posted by blackiceskier at 03/18/2013 04:56:07 am 









Re: Eye Protection/Safety Glasses at Worlds? 










The safety glass requirement will be enforced in the Alliance Stations. 

Re: Eye Protection/Safety Glasses at Worlds? 










Page 229 of 238



The safety glass requirement will be enforced in the Alliance Stations. 


Answered: G11 

Answered: G11 


Hi Karthik 

Recently there has been many wall bots and goal cappers appearing.. 

I have a few questions regarding them. 

1A. I know it says damaging other robots is against the morals of VEX but in some situations 

like if a robot expands and is not protected under G11 is it legal to intentionally damage the 

robot in question in an attempt to get past it. Example: the wallbot has piston brakes that 

prevent it from being pushed. Would it be legal to try to damage aka remove hoses or bend the 

unprotected pistons? Because they should be protecting their exposed pistons... 

1B. Same situation as above but this robot has a ultra powerful drive preventing you from 

pushing the wall. Would it be legal to attempt to pull out motor wires or VEXnet key in an 

attempt to get past said robot? From my understanding this should be legal and team with the 

wall bot should have designed it to protect these components. 

I know this seems illegal and is not good sportsmanship but these robots ruin the game in my 

opinion and if they were against me in finals at world's I would not be very happy being 

practically unable to score.. 

Thanks 

Answered: G11 


Hi Karthik 

Recently there has been many wall bots and goal cappers appearing.. 

I have a few questions regarding them. 








Page 230 of 238





I know this seems illegal and is not good sportsmanship but these robots ruin the game in my 

opinion and if they were against me in finals at world's I would not be very happy being 

practically unable to score.. 

Thanks 

Re: G11 







Intentionally attempting to damage pistons or pull out pneumatic hoses is not permitted. 





Absolutely not. Intentionally trying to pull out a teams wires or VEXnet keys is strictly 

prohibited. This falls well beyond the clause of "vigorous interaction" that is spelled out in 

. 

Re: G11 







Intentionally attempting to damage pistons or pull out pneumatic hoses is not permitted. 





Absolutely not. Intentionally trying to pull out a teams wires or VEXnet keys is strictly 

prohibited. This falls well beyond the clause of "vigorous interaction" that is spelled out in 

Page 231 of 238

. 


Thank you! 


Thank you! 

Re: Answered: G11 


Thank you 


Re: Answered: G11 


Thank you 



Answered: Calling out teams for sizing 





Hi again Karthik, I was told I had to make separate threads for each QA topic so: 

How is calling robots for being out of size handled at worlds? For example the red alliance 

calls a blue robot for being outside of the the 18^3 area. This specific blue robot gets called 

every single match people are against it. Does the robot still get the on field sizing box 

treatment every match? I feel this would be super time consuming ( blue calls red then red 

calls blue.) and abused by many people in eliminations and even qualification matches. 









Re: Calling out teams for sizing 





Page 232 of 238






If the red alliance calls out a blue robot for being oversized, the referee will determine whether 

or not it is necessary to measure the robot. The referee is under no obligation to grant the 

request. The referees will be instructed to only perform an on field sizing check in extreme 


Re: Calling out teams for sizing 








If the red alliance calls out a blue robot for being oversized, the referee will determine whether 

or not it is necessary to measure the robot. The referee is under no obligation to grant the 

request. The referees will be instructed to only perform an on field sizing check in extreme 



Answered: Entanglement 



Another one: 

1. Would standoffs connected by rubber links be considered a risk of entanglement? Acting as 

a tether for a goal capper? 

2. If a robot was to throw something over the high goal and some troughs to prevent scoring 

but the main portion of the robot ( all motors and cortex) is free to move around the field while 

tethered to the goal blocker. Would this violate any rules? Specifically grasping.. because the 

robot would still be able to move around and be pushed by other robots. 



Another one: 





Page 233 of 238





Re: Entanglement 


Another one: 



It's impossible to give any sort of blanket ruling on this type of design without inspecting the 

actual implementation. 






actual implementation. However, with any design that involves "tethered" devices, there is an 

extreme risk of entanglement. If this risk is not minimized, you may be violating any of the rules 

involving entanglement. 

Re: Entanglement 


Another one: 




actual implementation. 






actual implementation. However, with any design that involves "tethered" devices, there is an 

extreme risk of entanglement. If this risk is not minimized, you may be violating any of the rules 

involving entanglement. 


Answered: Tipping, Latching, and Vigorous Interaction (Hypothetical Situation) 



Page 234 of 238

Hello Karthik, 

Sorry for a less-than-average thread title... 



My team has a very powerful robot this year in all aspects, (drivetrain and lift systems), and I 

was wondering: 

(This happened recently at a practice session) Robot A is covering their trough, Robot B Is on 

the opposite side of the field. Robot B crosses under the trough simultaneously pushing robot 

A backwards. Robot A flips forward over Robot B and the trough, accidentally latching onto the 

trough(Robot B did not mean to flip Robot A). Robot B's drive team does not know that Robot 

A is latched and continues to push. 

If the field is damaged, who is at fault? 

Is Robot B disqualified for Tipping even though Robot A was playing defensively and it was 

accidental(G11, quoted below)? 

If Robot B's drive team backs away but Robot A stays latched... is Robot B disqualified in any 

way? 

Finally, If Robot A stays latched and Robot B backs away and leaves the trough alone, and the 

points in that trough cause Robot A to win the match, what could Robot B have done in that 

situation where Robot A blocked them from descoring? 

Sorry for the Hypothetical situation and rather long post, trying to be prepared for Worlds (We 

don't plan on destroying any field elements:D). 

G11 - 

"In the case where referees are forced to make a judgement call on interaction between a 

defensive and offensive robot, the referees will err on the side of the offensive robot." 



Hello Karthik, 

Sorry for a less-than-average thread title... 

My team has a very powerful robot this year in all aspects, (drivetrain and lift systems), and I 

was wondering: 







Page 235 of 238






way? 

Finally, If Robot A stays latched and Robot B backs away and leaves the trough alone, and the 

points in that trough cause Robot A to win the match, what could Robot B have done in that 

situation where Robot A blocked them from descoring? 

Sorry for the Hypothetical situation and rather long post, trying to be prepared for Worlds (We 

don't plan on destroying any field elements:D). 

G11 - 

"In the case where referees are forced to make a judgement call on interaction between a 

defensive and offensive robot, the referees will err on the side of the offensive robot." 

Re: Tipping, Latching, and Vigorous Interaction (Hypothetical Situation) 








It's impossible to issue a blanket ruling for this type of hypothetical situation, but it sounds as if 

the latching was unintentional, thus no one is at fault. 



It's impossible to issue a blanket ruling for this type of hypothetical situation, there's just not 

enough information to make an informed decision. 


way? 

There seems to be no violation here. 

Finally, If Robot A stays latched and Robot B backs away and leaves the trough alone, and 

the points in that trough cause Robot A to win the match, what could Robot B have done in 

that situation where Robot A blocked them from descoring? 

Sorry, we can't offer Robot B any strategic advice. 

Page 236 of 238



Re: Tipping, Latching, and Vigorous Interaction (Hypothetical Situation) 








It's impossible to issue a blanket ruling for this type of hypothetical situation, but it sounds as if 

the latching was unintentional, thus no one is at fault. 



It's impossible to issue a blanket ruling for this type of hypothetical situation, there's just not 

enough information to make an informed decision. 


way? 

There seems to be no violation here. 

Finally, If Robot A stays latched and Robot B backs away and leaves the trough alone, and 

the points in that trough cause Robot A to win the match, what could Robot B have done in 

that situation where Robot A blocked them from descoring? 

Sorry, we can't offer Robot B any strategic advice. 

Re: Answered: Tipping, Latching, and Vigorous Interaction (Hypothetical Situation) 


Fair enough :D 

Thanks! 

Re: Answered: Tipping, Latching, and Vigorous Interaction (Hypothetical Situation) 


Fair enough :D 

Thanks! 


wifi at worlds? 


Incedental Grappling 

Page 237 of 238





If i have an arm that is used primaraly for descoring, but can be used for covering as well that 

has standoff for the descoring at a 90 degree angle, and i am coving my trough. Then if the 

opponent robot pushes me while trying to lift the arm up in an attempt to descore, and it hooks 

the edge of the trough, would i be DQ'ed for this becasue of the no grappling rule? 

Thank you 

1961C 



If i have an arm that is used primaraly for descoring, but can be used for covering as well that 

has standoff for the descoring at a 90 degree angle, and i am coving my trough. Then if the 

opponent robot pushes me while trying to lift the arm up in an attempt to descore, and it hooks 

the edge of the trough, would i be DQ'ed for this becasue of the no grappling rule? 

Thank you 

1961C 


World Innovate Award Specifications? 


Question about SG9 

Question about SG9 


I know these questions are kind of annoying, but my team had been curious on the standard of 

SG9 ruling long since the season began...And now our curiosity break out and really want to 

find out whose interpretation of the rule is correct 

From the picture, the left is what the rule prohibits, which three sides of a robot is 

touching/close to a field element 

the right is similar but one side of the robot(the red part) could spin around an axle (the red 

circle), and the turning is neither powered by the robot or "frictioned" 

From my interpretation, both settings are illegal because they all presents a figure that 

resembles the given example in the handbook. But some of our team says that since the 

second setting COULD be pushed away from the field element, it should not be considered 

anchoring itself to the field 

We would really like to know which of our interpretation is correct and THANKS! 

Page 238 of 238

Official VRC Sack Attack Q&A - Open site which contains PDF - VEX ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?