Answered: Branching question from "Engulfing opponents mobile goals" (Involving <SG6>)

[GBHS_VEX_Member]

This post is an extension to question 2 of hoardbot’s post here.

Significant rules: <SG6>. If I ask about a violation, in this post, I am always referring to an infraction of <SG6>, as that is the only rule I believe could be broken in this scenario.

Robots may not intentionally grasp, grapple or attach to any Field Elements or the opposing Mobile Goals. Strategies with mechanisms that react against multiple sides of a Field Element in an effort to latch onto said Field Element are prohibited.

I have heard about Team 404Z, and I have heard that the back mobile goal does lift off the ground, due to a c-channel getting a mobile goal stuck. This, in theory, would be done by the second mobile goal pushing the first mobile goal back into the robot. Although I am not certain of the validity of the statement, 404Z is being asked about, so I may as well ask my nit picky questions now. As seen from one of the links on the Q&A summary, Another request for SG6 clarification, you correct that instead of any part of the mobile goal leaving part of the mat, you stated the following:

Not necessarily. It is possible for a Mobile Goal to partially leave the playing field floor through legal pushing, plowing, or other manipulation that doesn’t involve grasping or grappling. If the ENTIRE Mobile Goal leaves the ground, then that could be used as a reasonable test to determine if a robot is “grasping” a Mobile Goal and therefore a violation of SG6.

I have attached 3 photos. RobotExample1 is the description of the procedure that has been described to me. RobotExample2 and RobotExample3 are two different examples of the mobile goal being off the ground, 2 being that only part is scooped up inside the the C-channel, and 3 is with one side of the mobile goal slipping under the C-channels.

1. If in the case that such a robot had a mobile goal stuck in C-channels under 1, even if the robot could theoretically move backwards and get it out of there, I believe that would be a violation of <SG6>, correct?

Now this is where I am uncertain.

2. If a case happened similar to 2 or 3, would they be violations IF the robot can’t shake the mobile goal out of their robot?

3)Similar to Question 2, what if they could shake the mobile goal out of their robot?

[VEX_GDC]

We appreciate the images and well-formatted question, quoting relevant rules and reviewing the Q&A Summary document before posting. However, it is very difficult to rule absolutely on hypothetical designs and descriptions. Ultimately, it will be at the discretion of the head referee whether or not the robot has clamped, anchored, or latched on to the goal.

The “shake test” is a reasonable start to making this determination, but cannot be used as a definitive/absolute test. There are likely legal designs that would not pass this test, and illegal designs that would pass. (e.g. a pinching “claw” could definitely be grappling a Mobile Goal, but if you shake it hard enough, it will probably let go)