Hello all,
At a recent tournament our team went to, we played a match against two very competitive teams. These teams were very high caliber, and highly ranked in the tournament. One of these teams had an excellent robot and an excellent autonomous routine, that scored about 8 cubes in the unprotected zone. After autonomous, their team’s stack, leaned over to rest against their tray. I have drawn a rough sketch to show.
Obviously the sketch is not perfect. The lower 4 or 5 cubes were counted as scored, and the cubes touching the robot were not scored. I believe that the referee ruling was correct. The cubes not touching the robot were not contacting the top of the field perimeter, were not touching the top surface of a not scored cube, and touching the top surface of scored cubes. The team whose robot did this did not do it on purpose, it was just a very lucky coincidence for them.
At this point, you may be wondering why I made this post. As the opposing alliance, it was frustrating to see the majority of a stack be counted as scored when removal of the robot would have caused it to fall, as the stack did at the start of driver control. While this team did not do it on purpose, it could be a strategy a team (especially a DR4B) may adopt, stabilizing an extremely high stack at the end of a match. I am just hoping to see everybody’s opinions on the idea that the majority of your stack can be counted, and the robot can be holding it in place.
if the other cubes don’t rest flat on that base cube the rest of the stack doesn’t count
I read the rulebook as
“Contacting the Top Surface of a Base Cube or Stacked Cube.”
The cubes were contacting the top surface. Not the entire top surface, most definitely, but I believe they were contacting it.
The cubes were not touching the chamfer, they were contacting the edge of the top surface where it starts to meet the chamfer.
I stand corrected:
I will say that the first 5 cubes count as scored.
Thank you 
Pretty much this exact question was addressed early in the season:
Yes the question has been addressed. The ruling in the match we played was correct. I was merely asking what everyone’s opinions were on the possible strategy.
You also need see this answer:
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2019-2020/QA/333
It appears there are different requirements depending on if the cube is resting on it’s edge on the flat surface of the stacked cube verses if the cube appears to be resting on the edge of the stacked cube. According to the GDC, the latter is determined by the paper test.