The picture above depicts a concept for a robot. The robot is essentially a defensive pushing robot where the thin front portion of the “wedge” acts as a shovel. This is used to push sacks around the field when defending is not the highest priority. However, would this robot be deemed illegal for unnecessary tipping risk? If this robot were to push an opponent with its front, there is a high risk of the robot driving on top of the wedge and possible tipping over.
Let me preface this answer by saying that it’s impossible to give a blanket answer on these sorts of snapshots hypothetical situations. Here’s our best guidance based on the information available to us about these hypotheticals.
This appears to be a clear case of intentional tipping. The wedge robot has initiated the tip, and does nothing to rectify the situation.
This situation is far less clear. In general, for an intentional tipping call to be made, the offending team must be responsible for initiating and finishing the tip. In this situation the wedge robot has initiated the tip, but attempts to stop. From your description, it’s the tipped robot that has finished the tip. As such, it seems like this would be a situation where no foul was called.
This situation is even murkier. The opponent has chosen to drive upon the wedge robot, but the wedge robot has taken advantage of this to tip the opposing robot. The referees would evaluate situations like this on a case by case basis. In general, to protect themselves from DQs and tips, we recommend that teams don’t drive on top of other robots, and also that teams do not try and drive through robots that are on top of them and in danger of tipping.
In this situation, it would appear to be a no call, as it seems as if the tipped robot created their own tipping situation.