Answered: Further Clarification of Possession

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:

  1. 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!

Yes, the Robot is in Possession this Cone.

This Robot is not in Possession of the Cone.

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.