Answered: Further Clarification of Possession

[puzzler7]

https://vexforum.com/t/answered-clarification-of-possession/41469/1

In the above Q&A, you ruled that if my robot was “preventing [a cone’s] movement by others” and said cone was "within [my robot’s] frame perimeter, my robot was Possessing that cone.

For all images, black is robot, yellow is cone, dashed black is just a line to show position of the robot.

1. If I surround a cone with a wire that my opponents can drive over, is that cone within my robot’s frame perimeter? Am I preventing its movement by others? Am I possessing it?

Fig. 1:

2. In which of the following scenarios have I possessed the cone? Does that ruling change if the depicted black is a claw, and not the robot’s drive base? Does that ruling change if the claw is touching the cone?

Fig. 2:

Fig. 3:

Fig. 4:

In each, the cone is accessible from at least one side. Fig. 2 depicts the imaginary line between the tips of the claw (dashed line) tangent to the surface of the cone. Fig. 3 depicts this line intersecting the center of the cone. Fig. 4 depicts this line all the way past the far side of the cone.

Thanks in advance!

[Karthik]

@puzzler7

1. If I surround a cone with a wire that my opponents can drive over, is that cone within my robot’s frame perimeter? Am I preventing its movement by others? Am I possessing it?

Fig. 1:
http://i.imgur.com/oAEjraI.png

Yes, the Robot is in Possession this Cone.

@puzzler7

2. In which of the following scenarios have I possessed the cone? Does that ruling change if the depicted black is a claw, and not the robot’s drive base? Does that ruling change if the claw is touching the cone?

Fig. 2:
http://i.imgur.com/gxzzBN7.png

This Robot is not in Possession of the Cone.

@puzzler7

Fig. 3:
http://i.imgur.com/8lbLZ7S.png

Fig. 4:
http://i.imgur.com/JsBVRIa.png

In both of these cases the Robot is in not yet in Possession of the Cone, however if it pushed/plowed the Cone with that portion of its Robot, the Cone would then be possessed.