Answered: <SG9> Question

[anon50541363]

From <SG9>

Robots may not Possess more than one (1) Cone at a time.

Note: An intent of this rule is to prevent Robots from hoarding Cones by pushing them. The intent is not to punish Robots for pushing Cones that are in their way. Robots that intentionally plow multiple Cones to a specific location of the field, even with a flat/convex portion of their Robot, would be in violation of this rule. Robots are allowed to drive through Cones that are in their way. Teams are not allowed to use this to employ Cone hoarding strategies.

Suppose a Robot has deploying arms designed with the intent of plowing into and knocking over multiple Cones at the same time. In other words, the Robot pushes Cones with a flat or convex surface that are NOT in its way, but that are also NOT being hoarded. The intent is to tip multiple Cones at the same time. The Cones presumably are plowed just a few inches before falling over. The Cones are not being moved to a specific portion of the field.

Assuming no other rules are violated in the process, would the Robot be in violation of SG9? Does this change if the intent of the deploying arms is to block an opponent’s access to the portion of the field, but the effect is still the same?

Highly related question: Is it legal to use a flat or convex surface to move multiple tipped Cones to an upright position at the same time?

Thank you very much!

[VEX_GDC]

Let’s take a look at the portion of <SG9> that you have quoted again, with a specific section in bold for emphasis:

Note: An intent of this rule is to prevent Robots from hoarding Cones by pushing them. The intent is not to punish Robots for pushing Cones that are in their way. Robots that intentionally plow multiple Cones to a specific location of the field, even with a flat/convex portion of their Robot, would be in violation of this rule. Robots are allowed to drive through Cones that are in their way. Teams are not allowed to use this to employ Cone hoarding strategies.

Merriam-Webster defines “to hoard” as the following:

1: to collect and often hide away a supply of
2: to keep (something, such as one’s thoughts) to oneself

As always, it is difficult to issue blanket rulings based off of a snapshot of a single action within a match. However, based off of the scenario you have described, it sounds like the Cones are not being moved to a specific portion of the field with the intent of hiding them away or keeping them to yourself - thus, this does not sound like hoarding.

Let’s next look at the definition of Possession, again with some sections in bold for emphasis:

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.

This hypothetical Robot does not sound like it is carrying, holding, or controlling the movement of a Cone inside the Robot… Thus, it would not be considered in possession of multiple Cones at once.

@Coffee

Assuming no other rules are violated in the process, would the Robot be in violation of SG9?

Assuming no other rules are violated in the process, this Robot would not be in violation of <SG9>.

@Coffee

Does this change if the intent of the deploying arms is to block an opponent’s access to the portion of the field, but the effect is still the same?

Provided no other rules are violated in the process, especially <SG7>, then this would still be considered legal.

@Coffee

Is it legal to use a flat or convex surface to move multiple tipped Cones to an upright position at the same time?

Yes, this is legal, for the same reasons listed above.

In general, if your Robot is just driving around the field trying to play the game, you’re probably not in violation of <SG9>. The August manual update will include some additional verbiage (based on Q&A’s like this one) to help clarify this.