2025 RCJ Rescue Rule Changes

RoboCupJunior Rescue
1

Dear RCJ Rescue Community,

The RCJ Rescue Committee is excited to share with you the upcoming 2025 rule changes that apply to all the different RCJ Rescue competitions, RCJ Rescue Line, RCJ Rescue Maze & RCJ Rescue Simulation. We are working on incorporating this to the official rules as soon as possible. In the meantime, we want to let you know to start preparing, discuss the changes with your teams and provide any early feedback to the committee over this forum. This year’s changes required a lot of discussion, understanding the latest technology advancements, analyzing the team’s performance during the 2024 competition and determining the goals of the RCJ Rescue competition in an international setting. Having a community discussion over the proposed changes will help us make sure the final version of the rules will be in the best shape and form to have a competition that encourages innovation and learning among their competitors in a fair scenario.

RULE CHANGES

A.1) AI-Based Solutions

Starting this year, the use of AI-based solutions is permitted without restriction, including the incorporation of AI-based sensors (like the Pixie Cam or Husky Lens). Teams are allowed to incorporate any form of artificial intelligence into their projects. However, teams must demonstrate a decent understanding of the AI technologies they use, and the implementation will be checked. Teams creating more sophisticated AI solutions “from scratch”, will receive more points in the TPD documentation.

A.2) Elimination of Engineering Journal and introducing Presentation Video

The requirement to submit an Engineering Journal has been removed. Instead, each team is required to create and submit a short video presentation showcasing their work. These videos will be presented during the competition and should summarize the key aspects of the team’s project, design process, and innovations. The rubrics for video and TDP will be updated and will continue to have a weight in the team’s final score.

A.3) Compliance with TDP Template

All teams are required to strictly follow the designated TDP template. If a team does not follow this template (including but not limited to the different sections, fonts, size and length) the score for the document will be 0 and is not going to be evaluated.

A.4) Wireless Communication Policy

Wireless communication between devices on the robot is allowed during rounds. However, any communication with the robot from outside the field during the round is strictly prohibited. Teams may use a computer to calibrate the robot at the beginning of the round, but the robot must not start the scoring round remotely. Teams are responsible for their communication. The availability of frequencies cannot be guaranteed.

A.5) Super Team Challenge Communication

During the Super Team Challenge, teams may be required to communicate with other robots. It is strongly recommended that teams consider and plan their communication mechanism during the robot design phase to simplify multi robot communication. The robot would not be mandated to use wireless communication.

A.6) Drone Usage Ban

The use of drones/hovercrafts is prohibited in the challenge due to safety concerns.

Please let us know your feedback as soon as possible as we want to release the official final rules in the upcoming months.

For the specific league changes, please take a look at these posts:

Best,

Diego Garza Rodriguez on behalf of the 2025 RCJ Rescue Committee

1 Like
2

Hello Diego
Thank you for sharing the outline of the new rules.

A.3) Compliance with TDP Template

In Rescue Line 2024 rules

4.3.7 Technical Description Paper (TDP)

In RCJ Rescue Community website

Rubrics: Team Description Paper

The notation for “TDP” is not consistent.
Please clarify the terminology.

Best Regards
MASA

3

Hello Diego
Thank you for sharing the outline of the new rules.

A.4) Wireless Communication Policy

In Rescue Line 2024 Rules

Before you read the rules
Please read through the RoboCupJunior General Rules before proceeding with these
rules, as they are the premise for all rules.

and

3.2.4 , the RCJ General rules on wireless communication do not apply

I think these two statements are contradictory.
Is it possible to change the “General rules (Robot Communication)” to match Rescue Line 3.2.4?

Best Regards
MASA

4

Dear RCJ Rescue Committee,

Does A.1) permit the use of publicly available datasets or pretrained models?

Best regards,
Moritz

3 Likes
5

Hello Diego
Thank you for sharing the outline of the new rules.

A.4) Wireless Communication Policy
However, any communication with the robot from outside the field during the round is strictly prohibited. Teams may use a computer to calibrate the robot at the beginning of the round, but the robot must not start the scoring round remotely.

I have some questions about this article.
In this sentence, does “round” refer to “game”?
and
During calibration (Rescue Line Rules 2024 4.3.3), may teams use wireless communication between their PC and Robot?
Until at least RoboCup 2022, teams will not be able to use wireless communication for the entire 8 minutes of the game (including calibration).

Best Regards
MASA

6

Dear Rescue Committee,

Thank you for sharing the rule changes!

We would like to express our concerns regarding the unrestricted permission for AI use:
„A.1) AI-Based Solutions
Starting this year, the use of AI-based solutions is permitted without restriction, including the incorporation of AI-based sensors (like the Pixie Cam or Husky Lens).”

In our opinion, key parts of the previous rules for Rescue Line and Maze were important for both learning and ensuring a “fair competition”:
„3.2. Construction

  1. Any robot kit or building blocks, either available on the market or built from raw hardware, may be used as long as the design and construction of the robot are primarily and substantially the students’ original work.
  2. Teams are not permitted to use commercially produced robot kits or sensors components specifically designed or marketed to complete any single primary task of RoboCupJunior Rescue. Robots that do not comply will face immediate disqualification from the tournament. If there is any doubt, teams should consult the RoboCupJunior Rescue Committee before the competition.”

In our opinion, with the unrestricted use of AI, teams might be able to solve the scored elements of the challenges extremely efficiently without relying on significant individual solutions.

While the importance of AI is undeniable, it is crucial to ensure that the competition’s outcome is still primarily influenced by the teams’ own work.

Although the possibility of using AI is granted to everyone, it raises the question of whether it is beneficial for the future if everyone ends up using essentially the same pre-programmed tools or similar robots.

We believe it is important for the rules to continue encouraging teams to earn points primarily through their own unique developments.

Respectfully,
Team Lightning,
Szilágyi Jázmin

4 Likes
7

I would echo the concerns about the unrestricted use of AI.

While I would encourage teams to incorporate AI into their design, unrestricted use of AI-based sensors like the Husky Lens do not lead to meaningful learning. With devices like the OpenMV cam and libraries like OpenCV, the barrier to entry for teams creating their own machine vision solutions is already low. I can’t see how it can be beneficial to further lower the bar to the level of a “one-click” solution like the Husky Lens.

The rules says that “teams must demonstrate a decent understanding of the AI technologies they use”, but I have met many who can present themselves as knowledgeable about a topic (…whether it’s AI, machine vision, or math), and their lack of understanding is only apparent when they are tasked to implement it. If they truly understand the AI technology they are using, then there would be no need for them to rely on a manufactured solution like the Husky Lens. Besides, how could one even understand the AI technology being used by a closed source device like the Husky Lens? At best, we could do no more than make some guesses about their underlying algorithm.

Furthermore, what would be the treatment for teams who failed to demonstrate understanding of the AI technology they are using? Would they be disqualified? How would a judge assess this fairly? This seems no different from buying a sensor that is “specifically designed or marketed to complete any single primary task of RoboCupJunior Rescue”.

4 Likes
8

RoboCup Junior Committee,

Regarding the point “(A2) - Elimination of Engineering Journal and Introducing Presentation Video,” we discussed this as a team and concluded that the removal of the Engineering Journal could be detrimental in future seasons.

As a team dedicated to documenting our work, we believe the Engineering Journal greatly facilitates the understanding and connection of different areas and knowledge related to the competition. A well-maintained journal not only ensures organized planning but also supports a logical workflow. Additionally, it helps the evaluation committee identify teams that have not complied with regulations, upholding the principle that robots must be designed and programmed exclusively by team members.

Therefore, we believe the Engineering Journal should not be eliminated but rather used as a source of knowledge and sharing among teams, fostering fair play and camaraderie, but most importantly, promoting learning.

As for the introduction of a presentation video, it is a creative idea that could enhance team evaluations and would be well received as a more educational way to present our work.

Sincerely,
Sanja Tronic Team - BR

1 Like
9

Dear RoboCup Junior Committee,

I respectfully disagree with @SanjaTronic perspective. Last year, our experience showed that the Engineering Journal actually slowed down our development process. I believe that each team has its own unique approach to innovation and problem-solving. In our case, a rapid-iteration methodology allowed us to quickly adapt and refine our solutions, which was a key factor in our success. The requirement to maintain the Engineering Journal was a significant obstacle in this process, as it demanded time that could have been better spent testing and improving our designs.

While I agree that documentation can help organize planning and maintain a logical workflow, I think it’s important to recognize that not all teams benefit from the same methods. For us, the Journal felt restrictive rather than supportive. I do see the value that an Engineering Journal can provide for some teams, however, I think it should remain optional for teams that find it helpful, rather than a requirement for everyone.

Best regards,
Moritz

2 Likes
10

It’s encouraging to see that others share the same concerns about unrestricted AI usage. I have also voiced my concerns in this thread.

I wholeheartedly agree with Sanja Tronic’s call to reinstate the engineering journal requirement. Engineering journals are a fundamental practice that greatly benefits students by fostering critical thinking, documentation skills, and a deeper understanding of the engineering process. This is why widely recognized educational robotics competitions like FIRST Regional and VEX both mandate proper engineering journal practices—they recognize their value and have incorporated them into their requirements since their inception.

In the meantime, I could suspect why the committee might consider removing this requirement. Perhaps many teams simply did not implement it correctly and thus found it invaluable and a burden. The truth is that when maintained properly, these journals become an invaluable habit without imposing a significant additional workload.

When I mentor my teams, they all spend probably 10 minutes only for each 2-hour long meeting. Unfortunately, if not done thoughtfully, they can just become a tedious chore.

Reinstating the engineering journal requirement in RCJ would not only align with the practices of other major competitions, but also enhance the overall journey toward an engineering career - a vital skill both in academic and professional settings.

I sincerely hope the committee will continue to support mentors and teachers in this effort, recognizing the long-term benefits for our students

2 Likes
11

Hi Moritz,

I understand your concerns about the Engineering Journal feeling restrictive rather than supportive. However, the issue likely stems from the approach taken, rather than the concept itself. When done correctly, an Engineering Journal should only take a few minutes per hours long meeting, and is not meant to be a fully detailed document.

As you mentioned, the process slowed things down. That’s usually a sign that the journal was approached incorrectly. The journal should be brief—sometimes not even in full sentences—focusing on key issues and thoughts that are worth reflecting on. It’s more about stimulating critical thinking, almost like verbalizing thoughts aloud.

A well-executed journal entry might take only 15 minutes (max) per meeting (even for hours of meeting). I told my students that if they have to spend more than that, they probably have brain-dumped non-informative details. It’s meant to capture snippets of important points, not detailed reports. Considering your “rapid-iteration methodology,” the Engineering Journal should not impose any delays. If it did, I believe there might have been a misunderstanding of its purpose and correct usage.

Moreover, this habit becomes indispensable when transitioning from being a doer to an innovator, particularly when filing patents, for example. It’s a small step, but one that distinguishes a maker from a recognized innovator.

– Elizabeth Mabrey
Rescue Chair in USA.

12

Hi @MASA

Thank you for pointing that out! The correct term is “Technical Description Paper” as it primarily concerns the technical description of the robot.

Csaba
2025 Rescue Committee

13

I would to ask all mentors/teachers to continue having your teams to include engineering logs as part of their routine practices, no matter whether they will be scored at the competition or not.

HERE is a guideline I wrote up for my students. You may find others like this one from Robotics Education & Competition Foundation) . . Our job is to cultivate this crucial skill in pre-college students. The approach in my guideline aims to strengthen the habit while ensuring the log remains efficient and informative, but not become needless chore.

Hope this helps.

–Elizabeth Mabrey
Rescue Chair in USA.

1 Like
14

I absolutely agree, in my opinion the developement and training of a neural network for object detection from scratch was one of the most educating and intersting experiences during our developement.
I think allowing commercial solutions for these problems would in the long term prevent a lot of people from going this more educative but also more time consuming way, that in my opinion teaches a lot more of basic understanding about Artificial Intelligence than any other option.
Best regars,
Jonas (Team Jak&Jonas Maze)

2 Likes
15

Hi @elizabeth.mabrey @jeremy.desmond @moritz_biobrause !

Thank you for the feedback regarding the Engineering Journal Elimination!

We still consider the creation of the Engineering Journal valuable; however, each team prepares, works, and develops differently, especially in an international setting. This makes it really challenging to evaluate uniformly and fairly without placing a burden on teams to strictly adhere to the rubric. If any criteria are not fully met, teams have two options: either they can supplement it afterward ending in a 90+ page documents that is hard to evaluate objectively, or they will receive fewer points. That is why we decided to change this to a video deliverable, which provides more flexibility to the teams and where creativity is encouraged. The goal of this video is to complement the TDP document to create a better understanding of the competitor’s understanding and development.

We still encourage teams to develop their own engineering journal without the pressure of being evaluated in their final scores.

Best regards,
Csaba
2025 Rescue Committee

3 Likes
16

Totally agree with your opinion!

2 Likes
17

Hello @moritz_biobrause , @sz_jazmin2009 , @Cort , @SanjaTronic , @jeremy.desmond , @elizabeth.mabrey , @jomue , @PeterParker,

Thank you so much for your comments and feedback! Please rest assure we haven’t been that active on the forum because we have been reading and processing each of your comments, trying to see how to incorporate those properly in a fair way for the competition, while being realistically enforced and still provide a lot of learning value. We felt that we were missing to share a lot of the context behind this decision (specially what drove that decision and the challenges we have with that), and created a new forum post sharing those. The goal of this is to continue the discussion and arrive at the best solution together, looking for ideas in how to properly create a rule change that can be fair, innovative, educational and enforzable.

Please take a look and leave your thoughts in there, it is much appreciated!

https://junior.forum.robocup.org/t/unrestrictive-use-of-ai-rule-proposal/4438

Diego Garza Rodriguez
2025 Rescue Committee

1 Like
18

Hello @MASA,

We were working with the rest of the RCJ categories to look to unify the RCJ General rules on wireless communication. They have been updated and we are aligned with them! Therefore, we are going to remove that piece of the rules where it says we should not follow the general guidance. Please review the changes here: RoboCupJunior General Rules – RoboCupJunior

During calibration (Rescue Line Rules 2024 4.3.3), may teams use wireless communication between their PC and Robot?
Until at least RoboCup 2022, teams will not be able to use wireless communication for the entire 8 minutes of the game (including calibration).

Correct, teams may use wireless communication between their PC and robot for calibration if and only if they are able to fully demonstrate that the communication with the external device (PC) is fully disconnected and disabled before starting the scoring run. Teams need to note that this might take longer to the judges to validate and will eat some of their scoring time, but as long as it is fully validated it is allowed.

Thanks,

Diego Garza Rodriguez
2025 Rescue Committee

19

I posted a simple guideline in this thread. That’s what I developed for my students since 2019. Works well. Again, I would like to reiterate, if any team finds it doing eng journal slowing them down and time consuming, it is a symptom of not taking the right approach.

My students started to do eng journal from day 1, about 11 years old. Simple … starting from a few key words… during that process, it further stimulates their thought too. Now, for my older students, their thought is more well-structured and thoughtout, but still take only 5 minutes to do the eng journal for a 2-3 hours meeting.

–Elizabeth Mabrey
RCJ/USA Rescue Chair

20

“they have two options: either they can supplement it afterward ending in a 90+ page document, or receive fewer points”.

  1. This appears to be more of an issue with the approach and understanding of what an engineering journal should be: 90+ page document? For a whole full year, that is not unreasonable. Say you meet once a week, that will be 52 meetings… avg 2 pages per week. Much of this content should include snapshots, whiteboard discussions, and hand-drawn designs. If a journal’s 90 pages are filled only with text, it likely has strayed from the approach of doing an engineering journal.

  1. Rubric == guide discipline != burden.
    I respectfully disagree to this statement: “placing a burden on teams to strictly adhere to the rubric”… Rubrics are intended as guiding frameworks, inherently setting disciplines. To call it a burden is to view discipline itself as a burden. Further, I expect rubrics will also apply to videos. So, with the same rationale, wouldn’t videos also “burden” teams with guidelines?

  2. Purpose of the Video vs Engineering Journal?

  • Videos: while videos serve well in evaluating presentations and as an overview. It reflects the final result. But then, they overlap with the purpose of TDP and might be redundant as they both are after-the-fact documentation.
  • Engineering Journal: As we engineers all know, it is not the final result where we learn the most, it is the journey where we learn the most. Thus, only engineering journal can convey that level of insight. If the main goal is to allow teams to learn from each other, engineering journal is more effective than a video.

To summarize:

  • if the video’s goal is also to help judges to gauge team’s work and train their presentation skills , then “yes”, video is great.
  • However, if the goal is to allow teams to gain insight about someone’s engineering work, engineering journal will serve this purpose.

So, to kill two birds with one stone - perhaps, the video should require teams to reflect on their development process, NOT only the final result, because the TDP has already met that goal.

1 Like