The South Performance League (SPL) is an annual off-season FTC competition designed to support teams in sharing knowledge and strategies while empowering their progress on the field. Centered around pushing robots' performance to their fullest potential, each year the rules are refined and the stakes are raised, challenging teams to iterate on their designs and continuously improve together.
SPL was founded in August 2025 by FTC teams Clockworks (#19075) and Andromeda (#20691), both based in Bucharest, Romania. Since its inaugural edition during the INTO THE DEEP season, SPL has grown significantly — expanding from 16 teams and 1 country to 24 teams across 3 countries in just one year.
Being an off-season event means that the participating teams have been working on their robots for the better part of a year and have had the opportunity to create, test, and implement innovative strategies. Our SPL handbook differs from the standard FTC Competition Manual, modifying rules to enable more competitive and engaging gameplay.
It is our main goal to facilitate the best possible FTC experience for all participating teams and audience alike. Beyond the competition itself, SPL aims to become an international educational experience, incorporating workshops and travel grants as part of a longer programme that fosters growth and collaboration across borders.
The second edition of the South Performance League will be held on 6-7 June at the International School of Bucharest, in Bucharest, Romania. Up to 24 FTC teams will compete head-to-head to find out which is the best-performing team.
The following list covers the main changes from the inaugural 2025 edition of the South Performance League. It is still strongly recommended that this Handbook is read through in its entirety.
The South Performance League is, at its core, an FTC competition. Several of the standard FTC Competition Manual rules have been modified in order to create a competition format more suited to high-performance play.
With the exception of the explicitly modified rulings, SPL will carefully follow the official FTC rules, specifically those related to match play and scoring. This section overviews the changes applied to already existing rules from the official FTC Competition Manual. The list tries to be as comprehensive as possible, but overlaps and overlooked situations are possible. All final rulings are at the discretion of the event director.
Human players may now interact with artifacts in the Alliance Area, not just the Loading Zone. An extension rule allows human players to score into the goal in front of the Loading Zone.
G432 Humans only meddle with ARTIFACTS in the LOADING ZONE. Only meddle with ARTIFACTS in the LOADING ZONE AND THE ALLIANCE AREA DRIVE TEAM members may only introduce ARTIFACTS to, remove ARTIFACTS from, or move ARTIFACTS within the LOADING ZONE onto the robot and only the LOADING ZONE. Actions must occur:
G432 - Extension:
HUMAN PLAYERS may only score ARTIFACTS into the GOAL located directly in front of the LOADING ZONE within their ALLIANCE AREA. ARTIFACTS may not be transported or placed outside of the ALLIANCE AREA at any time.
Violation: a MINOR PENALTY will be assessed for every three (3) seconds per ARTIFACT found outside the ALLIANCE AREA.
Drive team members may now enter artifacts onto the field and into the goal during AUTO periods.
G433 Humans may only enter SCORING ELEMENTS. DRIVE TEAM members may only enter ARTIFACTS onto the FIELD and into the goal during AUTO periods.
The pin count is increased from 3 seconds to 5 seconds.
G422 There is a 3 5 second count on PINS. A ROBOT may not PIN an opponent's ROBOT for more than 3 5 seconds. A ROBOT is PINNING if it is preventing the movement of an opponent ROBOT by contact, either direct or transitive (such as against a FIELD element) and the opponent ROBOT is attempting to move. A PIN count ends once any of the following criteria below are met:
For criteria A, the PIN count pauses once ROBOTS are separated by 2 ft. until either the PIN ends or the PINNING ROBOT moves back within 2 ft., at which point the PIN count is resumed. For criteria B, the PIN count pauses once either ROBOT has moved 2ft from where the PIN initiated until the PIN ends or until both ROBOTS move back within 2ft., at which point the PIN count is resumed.
Violation: MINOR FOUL and an additional MINOR FOUL for every 3 seconds in which the situation is not corrected.
HUMAN PLAYER Scoring guidelines and Restrictions
One exciting new rule that SPL 2026 will implement is allowing human players to score artifacts during the AUTO period.
Improper HUMAN PLAYER Interaction
| Time | Day 1 | Time | Day 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9:00 | Check-in | 9:00 | Venue opens |
| 10:30 | Opening Ceremony | 10:30 | Check-in |
| 11:00 | Judging / Inspection | 11:30 | Qualification matches |
| 13:10 | Lunch break | 12:30 | Alliance selection |
| 14:30 | Qualification matches | 13:00 | Lunch break |
| 14:30 | Playoff matches | ||
| 17:00 | Award ceremony | ||
| 18:00 | End of Day 1 | 18:30 | Venue closes |
Teams should be prepared to fix any issues with their robots between the scheduled match times. No timeouts or delays will be handed out. Substituting a robot with the robot of another team, participating at SPL or not, is not allowed.
While innovative strategies are strongly encouraged at SPL, any egregious attempts at damaging another team's robot will quickly escalate to yellow and red cards.
An estimate of 144 matches will be played at SPL 2026. It is our goal to create the best possible FTC experience for everyone involved. This includes the teams, who should not have to wait excessively between matches; the livestream audience, who prefer a cohesive flow of matches; as well as the volunteers, who deserve to finish at a reasonable hour. It is for these reasons that the match flow will be closely monitored at SPL.
All matches will be played on 2 competition fields. Match-making processes follow the organic FIRST Tech Challenge official matchmaking processes, with each team playing up to 6 matches in total.
The queueing staff will call teams to matches with several matches to go. This is done due to the tightly packed schedule. A zero-tolerance policy is in place regarding queueing. If a team does not show up on time to the match or delays its start in any way, then the match will be played with only the teams present.
The complete drive team should be present for matches. Every match will be introduced by the MC before the start of the game.
Apply by filling in the application form.
The application form requires basic information, including team details and eligibility information. Depending on the number of applications, a selection procedure may be applied. SPL reserves the right to deny participation of teams not in line with FIRST or SPL values.
Prizes will be awarded based on the final event ranking and judged awards. The total prize pool for SPL 2026 is 1,200 EUR. The values shown may be split between cash sums and physical items or gift vouchers from our partners.
For each award, teams are scored on a scale of 0 to 5 for every criterion. Each judge assigns a score independently, and scores are then averaged per criterion. A team's total score for an award is the sum of the per-criterion averages. Each team will receive a feedback sheet containing their scores for every judging criterion. Total scores for all teams will be published on this wiki page after the competition concludes to provide transparency.
A first-place award is granted for each category and includes a monetary prize. A second-place award may be granted at the judges' discretion and does not include a monetary prize.
Each team is required to submit a portfolio consisting of no more than three (3) pages of content in A4 format, in either landscape or portrait orientation. Cover pages are excluded from the page count. In addition to the portfolio review, judges will conduct interviews at each team's pit or stand area to gather further information regarding the team's work and approach. During the pit interview, teams may present supplementary materials in any quantity or format to demonstrate their solutions.
There will also be a formal interview lasting at most 10 minutes, where teams can have up to 5 minutes to present their technical solutions to the judge panel. A further 4 minutes is reserved for questions and answers.
Portfolios must be submitted via email to contact@teamclockworks.ro. Teams may resubmit at any time; however, only the most recent submission received before 6 June at 10:00 AM (Romania Time) will be considered for judging.
| Hour | Team | Hour | Team |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11:00 | RoboTitans | 12:10 | Velocity |
| 11:10 | Info(1)Robotics | 12:20 | ViCyber |
| 11:20 | PrimeTech | 12:30 | Sparktech |
| 11:30 | Clockworks | 12:40 | AstaDynamiX |
| 11:40 | NorthEastDynamics | 12:50 | NeuroX |
| 11:50 | Leaf Robotics | 13:00 | Baby Clocks |
| 12:00 | Andromeda |
The Control Award recognizes the team whose ROBOT best demonstrates innovative use of sensors and software to enhance performance. The award evaluates control techniques, autonomous consistency, and the team's understanding of what their robot is doing.
| # | Criterion | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Software overview (Required) |
The portfolio submitted by the team must include an overview of the software control components on the ROBOT and which challenges each component is intented to solve. |
| 2 | Sensor input (Required) |
Team must use one or more hardware or software solutions to improve ROBOT functionality by using external feedback and control. |
| 3 | Clear control techniques (Required) |
The team applies and can name the control techniques used. The team should also be able to present how different sensor inputs affect the actuators on the robot. |
| 4 | Advanced algorithms (Encouraged) |
Mathematical formulation and/or system identification of the mechanisms on the robot was used to implement custom control algorithms tailored to the specific hardware properties. |
| 5 | Robustness (Encouraged) |
The robot detects and recovers from common failure modes - e.g. odometry drift, sensor redundancy, impact assessment of hardware failure. The control solutions should also work consistently during most matches. |
The Design Award recognizes the team whose ROBOT best demonstrates a balance of form, function, and aesthetics - applied to this season's challenge. The award evaluates the robot and the design process behind it.
| # | Criterion | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Elegance, efficiency, and maintainability (Required) |
The robot is simple where it can be, executes its function reliably, and is practical to service, repair, and adjust between matches. |
| 2 | Intentional design process (Required) |
The team can describe the steps taken from concept to final robot: research, sketches, CAD, prototyping, iteration, and testing. Decisions are justified, not accidental. |
| 3 | Clear design principles (Required) |
The team applies and can name the techniques they used - e.g., modularity, symmetry, weight distribution, center-of-gravity control, ergonomics, manufacturability, tolerance stack-up management. |
| 4 | Trade-off awareness (Required) |
The team can articulate trade-offs they accepted (e.g., speed vs. precision, complexity vs. reliability) and explain why. |
| 5 | Considered inspiration (Encouraged) |
The design draws from a clear source - existing mechanisms, biomimicry, prior-season learnings, industrial references - and the team explains how that source shaped the result. |
| 6 | Aesthetic identity (Encouraged) |
The robot is visually distinctive and cohesive: consistent finish, color, wire management, and presentation. Aesthetics are treated as a design output, not an afterthought. |
The Innovate Award recognizes the team whose robot showcases a creative solution that meaningfully improves performance. The award evaluates the process behind the innovation and the measurable impact it produced.
| # | Criterion | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clear innovation identified (Required) |
The team can point to a specific innovation - a mechanism, technique, or approach - and explain what makes it different from the common solution. |
| 2 | Documented process (Required) |
The team can describe how the innovation came about: the problem that prompted it, alternatives considered, prototyping and testing done, and the decisions made along the way. |
| 3 | Measurable impact (Required) |
The team can quantify or clearly demonstrate the improvement - in speed, accuracy, reliability, ease of use, scoring potential, or another concrete metric - compared to the approach it replaced. |
| 4 | Problem-first thinking (Encouraged) |
The innovation solves a real, identified problem rather than being clever for its own sake. The team can name the problem before describing the solution. |
| 5 | Iteration evidence (Encouraged) |
The team can show what was tried, what failed, and how the idea evolved across revisions. |
| 6 | Considered trade-offs (Encouraged) |
The team chose this approach over a safer or more conventional one and can explain what they gained and what they gave up. |
| 7 | Transferability (Encouraged) |
The innovation could benefit other teams, future seasons, or different applications. The team can articulate why. |
Control Award
Won by Team#21087VelocityVelocity has shown expertise in control techniques by leveraging advanced image processing pipelines to earn pattern points flexibly. They demonstrated that a simple sorting mechamism can go a very long way when supported by smart control algorithms.
Design Award
Won by Team#21476ViCyberViCyber's robot is a great example of clean design process. They are mindful of manufacturing techniques, additive and substractive, are capable of analisys of mechanisms and have shown great elegance in their thinking process.
Innovate Award
Won by Team#15989RoboTitansRoboTitans have shown an unique approach to shooting multiple balls. While having disadvantages, they worked to provide adequate mitigations and stuck with their solution thought the whole season, going trough many iterations.
Judge's Choice Award
Won by Team#32744NeuroXNeuroX are a rookie team that have made great progress in their first year. They have been seen building trough many iterations with little resources, each time going above and beyond to find the best solutions. They show fantastic integration with the FIRST community and are always eager to learn about new technologies.
| Team | Control | Design | Innovate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avg | Stddev | Avg | Stddev | Avg | Stddev | |
| 15989 | 3.7 | 0.91 | 2.5 | 1.38 | 3.35 | 1.38 |
| 15993 | 3.0 | 0.71 | 3.1 | 0.35 | 2.85 | 1.28 |
| 19056 | 3.0 | 0.71 | 3.0 | 0.00 | 1.71 | 0.95 |
| 19083 | 2.4 | 1.14 | 1.3 | 0.52 | 1.71 | 1.63 |
| 19134 | 3.0 | 1.22 | 0.8 | 0.41 | 1.78 | 1.07 |
| 21087 | 4.8 | 0.45 | 2.5 | 0.84 | 2.85 | 1.68 |
| 21476 | 3.7 | 1.30 | 4.2 | 0.41 | 3.21 | 0.49 |
| 32744 | 1.6 | 0.89 | 2.0 | 0.00 | 2.86 | 1.18 |
| 24964 | 2.4 | 1.52 | 2.5 | 1.05 | 1.57 | 1.13 |
| 99975 | 2.6 | 0.55 | 1.0 | 0.00 | 1.71 | 0.91 |
If you have any questions regarding the contents of this Handbook, or otherwise, please contact us via any of the methods listed below. This Handbook was written with the utmost care, especially when describing critical rulings. If any mistakes were found, we would be happy to correct them in the next version.
Instagram: @south_performance_league
Email: contact@teamclockworks.ro
Organized by:
The South Performance League is registered on the official FTC platform and promoted through official FTC channels and social media.