**In reference to figures 14-16, what factor being demonstrated by the different diagrams? Is it degree of enclosure defined by the measure of the degrees between the farthest apart points of contact? (see attached file) **
If this is a correct judgement, it appears that the robot is said to be in compliance with rule SG9 if it is enclosing less than 90 degrees of a field element, but would be in violation of rule SG9 if it encloses more than 180 degrees. Where is the cutoff between legal and illegal? (the red line in the attached pictures) Common sense dictates that a robot would have to be enclosing more than 180 degrees of a field element in order for an opposing robot to be unable to move it and thus for the robot in question to be considered “attached” to the field element. In this case the cutoff would be 180 degrees.
Also, the diagrams are also said to be overhead views. Would these rulings be the same if these were side views of a situation?
Without seeing the specific mechanisms in question, it’s impossible to issue any sort of concrete ruling here. The intent of this rule is to prevent teams from latching on and anchoring to field elements. If you have enough “wrap” to anchor yourself to the field, your mechanism is illegal.
