Answered: SG9 incidental pushing or controlling multiple cones

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…

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.

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.