Answered: Stacked Note 3: Tipped Mobile Goals

According to Note 3 of the definition of Stacked:

And according to SG9:

Meanwhile, in this thread, it was ruled that a team cannot “tilt the mobile goal and put cones on it and tilt it back to upright position after”, because

(I assume that this would imply that a robot cannot manipulate a tipped mobile goal of its own color while touching any cones on it other than the bottommost cone.)

Finally, SG9 Note says:

I have 3 questions about this rule:

  1. Suppose there was a tipped mobile goal with cones fully or partially nested on it. Would it be legal for a robot of the same color as the goal to move that goal to an upright or tilted position:
    A) If every cone, or all but one cone, fell off the mobile goal while it was being set upright?
    B) If one or more cones did not fall off of the mobile goal, even though the robot did not touch those cones? (I doubt this would be physically possible, unless the robot was exceptionally fast.)
    C) If all cones (except legally touched cones) fell off, and the robot deliberately moved slowly to enable cones to fall off the goal.

  2. Is it legal for a robot to remove multiple cones at once from a tipped mobile goal of its own color (either by moving the goal or by moving the cones) in an effort to make it legal for the goal to be tilted back upright? Would these cones count as being “in [the robot’s] way” as per SG9 Note?

  3. Would it be legal for a robot to do any of these things to an opponent’s tipped mobile goal, as long as this robot does not “grasp, grapple, or attach” to the goal (as per SG6), does not de-Stack any cones or de-Score any goals, and does not violate any other rules?

Thank you so much for your time!

Cones only receive the SG9 Note 2 “protection” when the Goal they are fully nested upon is upright. Any Possession of multiple Cones under any other condition is considered a violation of SG9. Thus, the only legal way to right a fallen Mobile Goal is by manipulating the Goal itself, not any Cones that may be fully nested upon it.

For this reason, if a stack (consisting of a Mobile Goal and fully nested Cones) completely falls over, there is unfortunately no legal way to re-create that entire stack all at once. This is why any destructive actions towards opposing stacks are so heavily protected by SG5, and why teams should exercise caution when interacting with their own tall stacks.

With that in mind, all of your scenarios would be legal if the robot is solely manipulating the Mobile Goal. As you mentioned, due to the dynamics of the Mobile Goals and the Cones, it is extremely physically unlikely that Cones would remain fully nested during this type of interaction (i.e. scenario 1B). This answer does not change if instead referring to an opponent’s Mobile Goal, other than per SG6 as quoted.

Hopefully this helps to answer your question. To avoid misinterpretation when asking questions interactions with tipped Mobile Goals, feel free to provide photos or videos in the future to help us understand what specific type of action or condition is being referenced.