2026 RCJ Rescue Entry Draft Rules

RoboCupJunior Rescue
1

Dear RCJ Rescue Community,

I’m excited to announce that the 2026 draft rules for the RCJ Rescue Entry leagues are online and ready to be consumed. You can find them here:

RCJ Rescue Line: https://junior.robocup.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/RCJRescueLineEntry2026-draft1.pdf
RCJ Rescue Maze: https://junior.robocup.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/RCJRescueMazeEntry2026-draft1.pdf

A big thank you to the Rescue Entry Subcommittee for all the time and effort they put into preparing the first draft of the entry rules.

Please review these draft rules and provide any comments, suggestions, or concerns you may have.
Your input will help us improve the rules and make them as clear and useful as possible for everyone.

Disclaimer:
These are just the draft rules of the entry leagues and are not important for the International Competition in Incheon 2026.

Best,

Stefan Zauper on behalf of the 2026 RCJ Rescue Committee

1 Like
2

Dear Team,

first of all: thanks for the initiative. I think it is incredibly important to provide an easier way to get started for new teams/schools.

tl;dr: I would remove the floating walls in entry

long version:

When we created the maze entry league rules in Germany (I believe they are used in many European countries), we did so by systematically trying to remove specific challenges for new teams and remove certain hardware requirements to

  1. reduce the complexity for students and teachers
  2. allow for a cheaper way for schools to get started with maze - spending 1k+ just to try out Robocup is often too much for many schools

Therefore, we split challenges into two sets: basic robotics (getting everything to work, react to sensor inputs), navigating uneven terrain, detect victims on the one hand and advanced robotics (exact positioning, SLAM) and algorithms (mapping, OCR) on the other. And this is exactly the split between entry and regular maze for us.

Therefore, in our entry leagues, we have:

  • No floating walls
    • Removes: mapping/SLAM algorithms, reduces sensor requirements (as the positioning does not have to be exact)
  • No letter victims
    • Removes: OCR, cameras
  • Victims on the floor instead of the wall
    • Removes: Additional sensors on the side (some optic sensors are required for detecting black tiles etc. anyway)

This leaves new teams/schools with the following challenges which has proven to be hard enough for new teams:

  • Build a robot that can drive in uneven terrain, navigate speedbumps, ramps etc.
  • Learn to adapt to different conditions (different lights, slightly different tile sizes, …)
  • Detect & follow walls
  • Detect & react to black tiles
  • Detect & react to victims
  • Detect & react to the starting tile

Some of these changes (victims on the floor, no letter victims) are already part of the new rules. But I think for getting started, the mapping/SLAM algorithm part that goes hand in hand with floating walls is a bit too much for an entry league (our participants are often 11 or 12 years old) and increases the hardware requirements (e.g. if one school already has LIDARs and a new school does not, they basically stand no chance, creating a financial arms race that we try to avoid for the entry leagues).

Greetings from Germany,
Oskar

2 Likes
3

Dear Stefan, I have read your post regarding the new 2026 draft rules for Maze Entry competitions.

This raises a number of important questions:

1- Is there a definite date for the publication of the ‘Final’ rules? This is no minor detail, given that the European Championship is fast approaching (there are only a few weeks to go).

2- As you are Austrian, I assumed – perhaps mistakenly – that these new rules will be adopted at the European Championships from 3 to 6 June in wonderful Vienna. Is that correct?

3- In that case, I would point out that the official website for the Vienna competition still features the 2024 rules, which are entirely different and were authored by three German experts who are no longer mentioned in the 2026 draft. Could you kindly clear up my doubts? I am confused.

4- I will now address the specific issues arising from an analysis of the 2026 draft. Is the presence of debris no longer envisaged?

5- Are the ramps being removed? Will the entire maze therefore be on the same level?

6- Are the colours green and red generic? In other words, can they be any shade? Is the RAL colour system no longer being used, as was the case with the crosses in the previous victim marking system?

7- Are the rescue kits being removed?

8- Those using standard platforms (such as Lego EV3 and others) already have a system that allows them to emit flashes of green and red light without needing to use two separate LEDs. Requiring the use of two separate LEDs poses significant problems, particularly with the European competition just a few weeks away. I suggest allowing teams the freedom to adopt either system. Incidentally, I find a solution using a single RGB-type LED capable of emitting multiple colours to be very elegant (especially if, in the future, you wish to use different colours for victims – such as green, yellow and red depending on the victim’s physical condition: presence only, mild illness, life-threatening condition), just to give an example.

9 – Cleaning the race track: Unfortunately, in recent competitions, the race tracks have sometimes been very dirty, with black rubber marks and dust. Under the old rules, teams were allowed to clean the race track on their own initiative if they wished, but only within the crucial 8-minute race window. Now, with just 6 minutes available (including any calibration), this becomes rather impractical. I believe we absolutely must introduce a rule allowing teams to demand that the playing field be cleaned before each run. It must be the responsibility of the organising committee to ensure the playing area is properly cleaned. This also serves to put all teams on an equal footing during the competition (sometimes those competing later on find themselves facing awkward conditions on the field). Please excuse my frankness.

I would like to thank in advance anyone who wishes to participate in this interesting and stimulating technical discussion.
See you soon in the splendid setting of Vienna.

1 Like
4

Hi,

Thanks for your questions and feedback!

Just to clarify: these are only draft rules at this stage. They are not automatically the rules used at the European Championships.
Regarding the European Open/European Championships, please use the official rules posted on their website. Those are the rules that apply for that event.

The goal of this draft is to work towards a more unified set of entry rules around the world, and to give organizers a basis to also run Entry in their own countries.

Best,
Stefan Zauper on behalf of the 2026 RCJ Rescue Committee

2 Likes
5
  1. Article 4.1.3

The article in the 2026 draft reads as follows: ‘3. Any pre-mapped type of dead reckoning (movements pre-programmed based on known locations or the placement of features in the field) is prohibited.’

During certain competitions, including the 2024 European Championships, for example, but not limited to these, some teams had adopted the solution of placing a small piece of yellow paper immediately beneath the robot, claiming that it was part of the robot itself. Once the robot was placed on the starting tile, the competition session would begin. The ‘trick’ involved the piece of paper remaining stuck and stable on the starting tile whilst the robot continued its path, exploring the maze. At this point, it became very straightforward to locate the starting tile and secure the exit bonus.

I explained several times to the competition judges that this ploy contravened the rule prohibiting any form of pre-mapping of the competition field. The response was that it wasn’t that clear and that whoever had drafted the regulations had not yet managed to find a phrase to include as a rule strictly prohibiting this ‘practice’.

I believe that failing to prevent the use of the trick described above undermines the integrity of the competition, as it renders software techniques for mapping the robot’s route virtually useless, thereby greatly simplifying the challenges inherent in the competition.

What is your view on this?

Thank you.

6

Thank you for your clear reply.

7

Thank You Oskar,
I want to fully support the content of your post.
In addition, in my opinion, the colored markings on the fields should be at least 7cm x 7cm. With simple color sensors, it is otherwise too difficult for students to recognize them.
And it would not be in the sense of entry to have to use cameras there as well.

Thanks to Stefan for submitting the entry rules.

Have a nice Day
Andreas

1 Like
8

I absolutely agree with Oskar and Andreas.
Furthermore, in my opinion the rules regarding Fake Victims should be further clarified. As I understand them, the current rules would allow Fake Victims that have the same color as normal victims but a different shape. Those could also only be distinguished from normal victims using cameras, which - as Andreas already mentioned - is not in the spirit of Entry.

Additionally, I don’t really like the removal of the Rescue Kits. In my opinion, the construction of a rescue kit dispenser was always an interesting and fun aspect of hardware design. Therefore, I think that when removing the rescue kits, there should be at least a similar challenge that requires teams to design some kind of special mechanism.

Thank you for releasing the Entry Draft Rules and for giving room for discussion.

Best regards,
Jonas

9

Rule 3.5.4
I think that this rule is too difficult to apply for U16 agonists. Moreover it presents a great variety of cases to analyze and solve. I believe that the Committee must delve deeper into the topic in question.
Waiting… best regards.

1 Like
10

Hi All,
Thank you for your feedback on the draft entry rules so far. To provide some background, the sub-committee considered ‘entry’ rules from multiple regions globally, including Europe, Japan, Australia & USA from memory. In particular I would like to highlight that the rules are not fixed in any way and open for regions/events utilising them to modify as needed to suit local needs.

To answer some questions/respond to feedback so far (my response does not discount the feedback from being considered by the sub-committee in future entry rule iterations):

okirmis Post:
Floating victims in Maze - yes, these are allowed, however this does not bind the teams to needing to be able to do this component of the challenge to engage in the challenge and build/grow their STEM skills. Some teams will be able to do them, some won’t - this is ok.

PeterParker Posts:
The maze is singular level

No specific colour system colours are defied. This ensures that all regions can use readily available materials locally (e.g. a common brand red/green tape from local hardware chains)

Rescue kits are not included

Great point RE EV3 (and similar unit) LEDs. This will certainly be discussed.

The size of the maze is entirely up to the event organisers - should they find that the maze needs regular cleaning, the organiser can make the mazes small enough to complete in say four minutes, leaving two minutes for cleaning.

Regarding the yellow paper, I would take the view the team(s) are not acting within the sprit of the event, and this is disqualifable under the general rules in Australia. However this varies from event to event. It could also be prohibited on the basis of the robot not being properly constructed given it has fallen apart before it has even moved from the starting position.

IGSKaufungen Post:
50mm was used as this is the size used in Australia, as 50mm tape is readily available. Is 70mm a common coloured tape size in your region? This could be set as a range however as mentioned above regions are free to adopt and adapt as they see fit.

jomue / PeterParker Posts:
I will certainly raise this with the sub-committee RE the fake victims. As the intent was for the robots to not require cameras to effectively address the challenges.

Thanks again for the feedback and keep it coming :slight_smile:

1 Like
11

When will the official rules be released?

1 Like
12

Reposting here as requested by @evanfromoz. My feedback only concerns Line Entry

First, let me start by saying thank you for pushing the worldwide Entry Rules.

tldr: I would prefer the Entry rules to stay closer to a simplified version of the current Rescue Line rules, so the step from Entry to Line remains manageable for both teams and organizers.

As a tournament organizer and previous participant who switched from Line Entry to Line in Germany, I fear that the switch right now is too hard.

1. As a participant, there are too many new challenges
When switching from Line Entry to Line, under the current draft rules, teams will have to learn an entirely new evacuation challenge.
New victims, new evacuation points, new exit, …
Additionally, intersections are a completely new challenge.
All of that will come together with advanced driving on ramps and a way higher level of difficulty with lines, obstacles, debris, …

I think this switch is too hard, and the rules should try to be more similar to the original rules:

  • Evacuation zone with spherical victims
  • Simple intersections

2. As a tournament organizer, there is needlessly additional material
I want to minimize the amount of new material. I would prefer the entry rules to be a subset of the normal line rules.
They should not introduce new material (Yes, silver cans are not much, but my experience is that collecting balls is not the difficulty)

Also, the decision to exclude intersections (and possibly double-ramps, see below) makes it reaaaly difficult to design arenas that are unique.

3. Just some inconsistencies I noticed:
tldr: The new entry rules should be as similar to the normal line rules as possible.

There are a number of inconsistencies, which I dont think are intended:

  • Scoring differs (e.g. obstacles are scored 20 vs 10 points, …)
  • 1.1.3: Age requirements were not updated (I guess Entry should target children below 14 years)
  • 3.6: Do I understand correctly that there are no double-ramps allowed anymore?
  • 3.6.4: Does that mean I may put obstacles, … on the ramp?
  • 3.7.7-9: “Evac points” should probably be singular

4. Entry rules should be based on the latest line rules
Reading through the rules, many paragraphs are slightly different.
It seems like the rules are based on line rules, which are a couple of years old.
It would be great if they could be based on the latest rules, so there are no missed inconsistencies.
Examples: 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.5.3, 3.7.4

Also, a changelog outlining the changes relative to the Rescue Line 2026 rules would be really useful.

13

Dear coolpixle,
As this is the release of the first draft, we’re currently looking for community feedback and an active discussion. We currently expect the final release to be finished early in the next season, so in August/September.
Best,
Tom on behalf of the RoboCup Federation Executives representing RoboCupJunior

1 Like
14

Do you happen to know what are the rules for the current competition in Vienna?

15

Please refer to the official Website of the competition in Vienna: RoboCupJunior Leagues | FH Technikum Wien
There you can find the latest updates from the organizers and links to all rule sets for this specific competition.

The entry rules that are discussed in this thread are still in a draft state and not for final competition use.

Best,
Tom on behalf of the RoboCup Federation Executives representing RoboCupJunior

1 Like