From the Arena to the Judges’ Table : My Experience at WSRO Nationals in Goa
The WSRO Nationals at Peddem Indoor Stadium, Mapusa, Goa, on September 26th and 27th gave me a very different perspective on robotics competitions.
I have experienced competitions as a mentor, watched students prepare for them, helped teams troubleshoot robots and seen the excitement from the participant side.
This time, I was there as a judge.
And judging turned out to be a competition in itself — except that the challenge was not to build or drive a robot.
The challenge was to observe, understand, evaluate and make decisions fairly while watching young teams reveal what they had learned.
Day 1: LEGO Budding Builders
The first day featured the LEGO Budding Builders category, with 17 teams participating.
One of the most memorable details was the age range.
The youngest team member was just 5 years old.
At five, a robotics competition looks very different from what it looks like to an adult.
There is less concern about whether the mechanism is perfectly engineered and much more curiosity about:
What happens if I put this here?
Can I make it move?
What if I change this?
Why didn’t it work?
And that curiosity is precisely where engineering begins.
As a judge, I found myself watching not just the final models, but the process behind them — how children approached their builds, how they explained their ideas and how they responded when something didn’t work as expected.
For young children, the ability to experiment without being afraid of failure is an important part of learning.
A competition can provide a surprisingly powerful environment for that.
Day 2: 1 kg LEGO Sumo
The second day brought a completely different kind of energy.
15 teams.
Around 40 matches.
One arena.
And robots trying to push each other out.
The 1 kg LEGO Sumo category was particularly interesting from a judging perspective because the outcome depends on several things coming together.
The robot needs to be mechanically sound.
It needs traction.
The weight needs to be distributed effectively.
The drive system needs to generate enough force.
The sensors need to detect the opponent and the edge of the arena.
And the programming or control strategy needs to respond quickly.
But even when all those pieces appear to be in place, the actual match can produce something completely unexpected.
The Arena Changes Everything
One of the biggest surprises of the judging experience was seeing how differently robots behaved once they entered the actual arena.
A robot can look impressive during testing.
But competition conditions introduce variables that are difficult to reproduce during preparation.
The opponent behaves differently.
The robot may approach from an unexpected angle.
A sensor may detect something differently.
A wheel may lose traction.
A robot may get pushed into a position the team never anticipated.
And suddenly, the carefully prepared strategy has to deal with reality.
That is what makes robotics competitions so valuable.
The real world rarely follows the test plan.
Around 40 Matches — Around 40 Lessons
Watching around 40 matches provided an opportunity to observe the same problem being approached by different teams.
There were different designs.
Different strategies.
Different levels of preparation.
Different reactions to unexpected situations.
And different ways of solving problems.
Some matches were decided quickly.
Others required robots to recover from situations that initially looked almost impossible.
Sometimes a small design decision had a large impact.
Sometimes a robot that seemed to have an advantage didn’t behave as expected.
And sometimes the most interesting learning happened after the match, when teams tried to understand what had happened.
That post-match reflection is an important part of engineering.
The question is not simply:
“Did my robot win?”
The more useful questions are:
Why did it behave that way?
What happened that I didn’t anticipate?
Which assumption was wrong?
What would I change if I had another attempt?
That is the beginning of the engineering design process.
The Surprises Were the Best Part
There were plenty of surprises during the two days.
And that was perhaps the most enjoyable part of being a judge.
Robotics competitions are full of uncertainty.
A team may have a beautifully designed robot but encounter an unexpected problem.
Another team may have a relatively simple design that performs remarkably well.
A tiny change in strategy can alter the outcome of a match.
A robot can behave differently against different opponents.
These moments make it clear that engineering is not simply about building something that works once.
It is about building something that can work under changing conditions — and being able to understand and improve it when it doesn’t.
Judging Is Also a Learning Experience
Being a judge requires a different mindset from being a mentor.
As a mentor, your natural instinct is to help.
You want to identify the problem and guide the student toward a solution.
As a judge, you have to step back.
You have to observe.
You have to give every team the space to demonstrate what they know and what they can do.
You begin noticing small details that you might otherwise overlook.
How does the team communicate?
How does it react when something breaks?
Does the student understand why the robot behaves in a particular way?
Can the team adapt?
Is the solution actually their own?
How do they handle an unexpected situation?
These observations reveal something that a score or match result cannot fully capture:
the learning journey behind the robot.
From Competition to Learning
This is why I believe robotics competitions have value far beyond the competition itself.
A child may enter wanting to build a robot that wins.
But along the way, they encounter:
mechanics → electronics → programming → problem-solving → testing → failure → redesign → teamwork → communication → resilience.
None of these lessons happen neatly in isolation.
They happen together.
And that is what makes robotics such a powerful form of experiential learning.
The robot becomes the medium through which children experience engineering.
From Participant to Judge
For me personally, judging the WSRO Nationals was a valuable change in perspective.
Participating in competitions teaches you to focus deeply on your own robot.
Judging allows you to step back and see many different approaches to the same challenge.
You begin to notice patterns.
You see clever solutions you hadn’t considered.
You see common mistakes.
You see how different teams respond to pressure.
And you realise that every robot carries a story of experimentation, failure, iteration and learning.
After two days at Peddem Indoor Stadium, I left with a renewed appreciation for the role competitions can play in STEM education.
17 teams on Day 1.
15 teams and around 40 matches on Day 2.
Dozens of robots.
Hundreds of engineering decisions.
And countless small moments of learning.
The biggest takeaway for me was simple:
Sometimes, the most interesting part of a robotics competition isn’t who wins the match. It is everything the students learn while trying to make their robot work.
And sometimes, when you stand at the judges’ table, you end up learning just as much by watching them.
A Note of Gratitude
Thank you to the WSRO organisers, fellow judges, mentors, teachers, parents and all the young participants for making the Nationals such a memorable learning experience.
For me, Goa was not just another robotics event.
It was a reminder that when children are given the opportunity to build, test, compete, fail, adapt and try again, the learning goes far beyond the arena.