In the above image, in the second diagram, the ring not on a branch is still 1 point because it’s inside the vertical projection. If the mobile goal is slanted and the ring is in the same position (resting in the crotch of the branches), would it still be one point if it’s outside the “true” vertical projection? By the diagram’s definition, it would seem to still be worth one point.
But if the mobile goal is knocked over, and “vertical projection” means perpendicular to the mobile goal base (as the diagram implies), would any ring on the ground in that projection be considered scored?
I understand that this question really tries to stretch the word “vertical”, but from the practice matches I’ve seen, rarely are mobile goals ending the match completely flat on the ground, and the branches are rarely in the true vertical space above the base
Good point for clarification. I think we’ll see that the answer is the ‘projection formed by the “bowl” of the Mobile Goal Base’ the way it is illustrated in the figure. It’s vertical in the figure because the goal is standing upright, but it would have to tilt with the bowl for the “+1” example in box 2 to remain scored. With this definition, a ring under the mogo base would not be scored. Also consider that if a Mogo were sitting on top of three rings, we wouldn’t score the three rings it’s sitting on because they aren’t in the “bowl” or it’s projection.
very interesting question. If we take vertical literally, it would mean a projection of the bowl part of the goal base straight upwards, regardless of the orientation of the goal. And because the manual gives no further clarification, I think the literal definition of vertical is our best bet. Does this projection become elliptical instead of circular if the goal is tilted? I presume yes. anyways, I don’t think it matters too much since it’s incredibly unlikely for a ring to be balance on the top of a tilted goal.
I don’t think so because the scoring rules refers to a ring scored in a goal base, not a goal with a ring in it’s base. The difference being that the manual doesn’t care if a ring is scored in multiple goal bases, as long as it’s scored in any, it’s only worth that 1 point.
A ring underneath a goal would probably count though. it meets the definition.
Unless we don’t take vertical literally, and instead we think of it as a projection parallel to the goal post, extending outwards only from the bowl side of the goal. But the manual doesn’t say this, so I don’t think we can interpret it like this.
Based on this interpretation, after a mobile is balanced on the platform, just bulldoze a bunch of rings under the platform into the “downward vertical projection” of the mobile goal. (obviously clarification is needed from the Q&A)…
I agree the best bet would be to take the definition literally, and when the goals are tilted, use the elliptical true vertical projection to score rings. But if the goal is tilted because it’s on top of a ring, that ring would be scored as well I believe
so by the manual definitions, if a competition is occurring on the exact opposite side of the world as another competition, would the vertical projection of goals from one competition extend through the earth and rings on the correct spots on the field of the other competition technically meet the definition of scored?
Here’s a really great page: https://www.antipodesmap.com/ According to this, opposite our competitions in Michigan is the ocean, between Australia and South Africa. Watch out for sharks, but no worries on the downward vertical direction rule!
This was answered earlier in this thread. Since the manual defines the ring in the base as scored and not the base itself scoring, then the ring is simply “scored” once since it’s either scored or not scored
Lol. That would be too easy for GDC to disallow. However, the elliptical intersection of the “vertical” projection from the bowl of a goal laying on its side and the floor tiles somewhere in the alliance home zone, provides a very nice landing area for the manual matchloads.