Answered: Legality of cagebot counter strategies

If an opposing robot (red) is encompassing one of your (blue) mobile goals (as described in this and other posts which of the following counter strategies would be legal:

Pushing the opposing robot, with mobile goal into your 10 point scoring zone?
Lifting the mobile goal with the opposing robot still encompassing it?
Lifting the mobile goal to the extent that it caused the opposing robot to tip over?

Assume that the referee interprets all of these maneuvers by the blue robot to be offensive moves, where the intent of the blue robot is to score points and not damage or disqualify the red robot.

G12 reads as follows, with a portion bolded for emphasis:

A Robot which is encompassing its opponent’s Mobile Goal(s) is clearly undergoing a solely defensive strategy; as a result, it does not generally have the “protection” against harsh maneuvers that <G12> generally offers to offensive robots. Teams who choose to undergo solely defensive strategies, such as collecting opposing Mobile Goals, should be prepared to withstand vigorous interaction from offensive robots.

With that in mind…

These two actions would likely be legal, provided that a referee determines them to be offensive actions and not purely destructive. A Robot who chooses to encompass their opponent’s Mobile Goal should expect said opponent to attempt to retrieve it.

This situation would be more of a judgment call by the referee, depending on the context of the match. Pushing an opponent into the 10 Point Zone is a pretty serious interaction, and could be considered a violation of <G13> (intentionally causing an opponent to break a rule). This interaction should have some verbal cautionary warnings from the referee, potentially to both Teams, before it reaches the point of getting into the 10 Point Zone.