So, you can unintentionally flip the robot if the cage just so happens to get in he way, but it is legal. Is this correct?
The cage technique was match affecting in this case, the red team’s robot should have got a DQ, which would give you an automatic win anyway. Tipping the robot would most likely result in a warning. Do keep in mind that many Referees in qualification tournaments do not know the rules very well, so a mobile goal hoarding robot breaking the rules can easily go unnoticed.
what if near the end of the game you just set down a cage preventing the enemy team from picking it up but not touching the mobile goal itself.
I think it is illegal based on responses. If it moves in one direction (front and back) it stays still, it is legal. But if it turns the mogo’s direction, it is technically illegal because according to the judge’s videos it is illegal if it changes direction. While the one that antichamber posted says they can make it, the response is, “if it does not violate other rules” as this one does according to judges videos. In the second example it stated that having something enclosing the mogo as shown in the pictures it is illegal. Maybe when the cage was holding one mogo it could be argued that it was legal, but when it held two mogos and was turning it around and moving it and essentially attached to the mogos, it should have been declared illegal.
It is legal.
This one is about multiple sides encompassing the mobile goal:
answered-controlling-an-opponent-s-mobile-goal-clarification
This one talks about the video:
answered-another-request-for-sg6-clarification-updated
So the only way to get those goals would be to violate a rule and break the opposing bot? I guess every team needs a cage attachment now or they won’t have a chance.
What you just described would be legal based on prior answers to the official Q&A
At that competition, the referees stated that this game “Was an offensive game, and not a defensive game”, and as such, we were told that our robot could possibly be broken in order to get to the goals, or something similar to that effect, and due to it being “an offensive game instead of a defensive game”, that was legal, as long as it wasn’t ridiculous. Their logic was that due to the defensive strategy, G12 would be not enforced unless it was really bad. For example: If an opposing robot attempted to lift up the arm and broke the gears connecting to it, that was ok, but if they damaged the Cortex, then that was illegal. Or at least that is what I could extrapolate from their decision. And we were ok with it.
The ref stated at 1:39:35 that " I’m not saying that you can’t beat the hell out of it to get it out."
And 1:42:00
Thanks for the explanation @The_Rubber_Spoon !
If you don’t mind me asking, what if the team stacks a bunch of cones on the trapped mobile goals? the cage bot cannot move, or it might tip over the stack and get disqualified. In this scenario, which team would be at fault?
I stand corrected. I just found this in the official Q&A:
https://vexforum.com/t/answered-hoarding-opposing-mobile-goals/41594/1
@avspark
I assume you are talking about stacking while our robot is trapping them. There was actually one match where a team did stack one cone on the mobile goal while we were trapping it. It was counted as it normally would. If the defense robot removed it then it would be illegal, I believe even regardless if the offensive robot lifted the arm in order to remove the cone, though I am not sure due to G13. I would assume that “This game is an offensive game and not a defensive game”, then the defensive robot would be penalized, even though the offensive robot violated G13.
A robot placing a cone while trapped It is at 2:51:50
Now, if the offensive robot stacks, for example, 5 cones on a mobile goal then we steal it, and did not remove a cone while stealing it, no penalty is called. But if we stole it and knocked off 1 or all cones, then we would be penalized. Once the defensive robot has trapped it, then it breaks down as I have stated above.
Difficult for me to search and attach some of the earliest rulings regarding hoarding mobile goals (as I am only using my mobile devices).
But strictly speaking - there is no rules against hoarding of opponents’ mobile goals. But it is how you do it that might be a violation.
Sg6 definition of “grasp, grapple or attach” basically means robot cannot interact with multiple sides of the mobile goals (and that’s the reason why we can’t find a legal way to lift up the opponent’s mobile goal).
And if you look at abt 2:51:15… it is clear that the corners of the “cage” is interacting with multiple sides of the mobile goals.
But… is there multiple sides to a circle? Or do we use the usual mathematical definition for circle - circles has only 1side? 
Actually, there is nothing in the rules about interacting with multiple sides with regards to mobile goals. There is for field elements. There was a ruling earlier with a drawing showing a cage around the mogo and the question was about moving around. Basically, if you do not get under it or actually grab it, there is no problem. The goals were loose in the cage. It was almost exactly what was drawn in the Qand A question.
Nope… not referring to that.
There was an earlier q&a regarding it.
It was before singvex, and we were thinking of doing a wallbot that will carry 2 or 3 opponent’s mobile goals.
And the ruling that prevented us from doing it.
Edit: give me some time to try to find that thread… on the road currently.
Carrying them would be out, but pushing is not. At first glance, I thought it should have been a DQ but the rules do not talk about interaction with multiple sides of the mogo and there are answers in the Q&A that seems to say this is OK. It would not be for cones, but for mogos it is not an issue according to this answer:
This is the q&a I am referring to.
But you are right - looks like there is no clear restrictions on interacting with multiple sides of a mobile goal, as Long as we are not carrying it.
But this q&a did not provide a clear definition of grasp, grapple or attach.
Eg. Is the cagebot consider as grappling the mobile goals?
One strategy to counteract their very good design would be to score the goal while it is contained in the cage bot. While that could be difficult, it’s not impossible.
You could push the mobile goal into your 5 point zone. Might need help from your alliance partner, but it seems workable. It’s not pinning, since the cage bot could leave whenever it wants to; just uncage the goal and drive away.
With a carefully designed robot and mobile goal lift, you could slide under the cage (you’re allowed to contact other robots) latch on to your mobile goal and drag it to the scoring zone, bring Cage Bot along with you. With a truly hefty bot, you could go for the 10 point zone. You aren’t trying to force a DQ, you’re just trying to score your goal.
Using SG7 and SG11 might also be effective but would be time consuming. But could be used for a DQ during elimination rounds.
Say the cage bot is on the red alliance. The 2 blue robots cooperate in attempting to put cones onto the caged MOGOs (specifically not breaking SG7) until the cagebot has moved the caged MOGOs into the red 5 point zone, thereby violating SG11.