Answered: SG9 incidental pushing or controlling multiple cones

[Adam_T]

The referee training video clearly shows a robot possessing multiple cones with a concave surface. In the example the robot TURNING with the cones is emphasized.

In the note on <SG9>, and in some FAQ responses, INTENT is referred to as a reference to determine hoarding.

Question: Is a robot pushing multiple cones STRAIGHT with a CONCAVE surface possessing multiple cones?

Does the INTENT of the driver make a difference? (e.g. pushing multiple cones out of the way purposefully vs. inadvertently pushing cones because you are driving and they happen to be in front of the bot.)

Here is a video of the type of scenario I am considering in my question…

Possessing – A Robot is considered to be Possessing a Cone if it is carrying, holding, or controlling the movement of a Cone in the Robot. Pushing/plowing Cones is not considered Possession, however using concave portions of your Robot to control the movement of Cones is considered Possession.

<SG9> Robots may not Possess more than one (1) Cone at a time.
Minor violations of this rule that do not affect the Match will result in a warning. Match Affecting offenses will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a Disqualification at the Head Referee’s discretion.
Note: The intent of this rule is not to punish Robots for pushing Cones that are in their way; that is, Robots are free to incidentally drive through Cones on the field while Possessing a Cone. However, Teams are not allowed to employ Cone hoarding strategies. Cone “hoarding” refers to the act of intentionally plowing multiple Cones to a specific location of the field, even with a flat/convex portion of a Robot, such that they are kept away from the opposing Alliance.

[VEX_GDC]

Is a robot pushing multiple cones STRAIGHT with a CONCAVE surface possessing multiple cones?

Yes. Please see this Q&A, specifically cases 3 and 4. The example given in the video appears to be a minor violation of SG9 and should warrant a warning, unless the action was determined to be Match Affecting (or Autonomous Affecting per rule G10).

The mention of “turning” in the referee training video is meant more as a mental visualization tool than a literal indication - turning is not necessarily a prerequisite for Possession.

In the note on <SG9>, and in some FAQ responses, INTENT is referred to as a reference to determine hoarding. …] Does the INTENT of the driver make a difference?

Please note that “hoarding” is different from “Possessing multiple Cones”. “Hoarding” does have some reference to intent, since part of its criteria is “keeping Cones away from the opposing Alliance”. However, it is possible to Possess multiple Cones without hoarding them, and Possession has no reliance on driver intent.