Which way is down?

Pardon the possible stupidity of the following question, but I was wondering if you turn a stack upside down, is the top cone now the one closest to the goal? In other words, could you turn a stack on its head and pick up all but the last cone?

Whoa, never thought of it like that… Seems unlikely that this is the case but would possibly make for an interesting strategy if so.

Can you post what rule you are trying to understand?

@tabor473 definition of Stacked on pg 9 reads:
“Note 2: By these definitions, if a Robot is touching a Cone on a Mobile Goal, that Cone and
any above it will not count as being Stacked.”
Does that mean any cones above it as in any farther from the goal or any cones above it as in farther from the ground?

See where you are trying to get but I highly doubt any official will regard that as legal haha.

What rule makes that illegal to do?

Stacked requires it to be fully nested, and you can’t nest two pointy ends. this means that you would by controlling a lot of cones. If I understand you wrong, you are still probably possessing a lot more than one cone at a time.

@Silicon I’m saying you have a stack on a mobile goal but all of the cones and the goal are upside down. They’re all still nested. Since the robot is only touching the “top cone” (furthest from the goal but closest to the ground) I think maybe it won’t count as possessing the other cones in the flipped stack

To me, UP is still UP and doesn’t change by flipping the stack over. Although there is NO specific rule, there is a rule that refers to common sense. The top cone is still the cone furthest from the ground, in my opinion anyway. Besides, given the relative weight of the movable goal (3.7lbs), any “upside-down” stack would be incredibly top heavy.

I think it would count as possession, but I’m not exactly sure what this accomplishes if it didn’t.

This is a great question for the forums. It was one that one of my students asked. The reality is that it is 100% up to Karthik. As we have seen from prior years, sometimes the answers have no basis in what we find in the game manual.

@Gallium well if it was legal, you could pick up a stack by a cone and then since there would be no cones “above” it, you would only be possessing that cone. It would mean you could lift up a stack and insert cones into the center of a stack like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-fA0YxxvnU (best time to see it is around 0:42)
That removes the necessity of building high as long as you can support the stack

@J_L_Picard Oh, I see. You’d have to manage to support it only from the bottom and the goal. The goal is so heavy, I don’t see it being possible to get very high, not to mention you’d have to flip it back over, but if you figured that out it could work.

Similar question:

Suppose you were to have a pylon with a Stack of 10 cones. You then place it on its side such that each cone is still fully nested in the cone “below” it. How many cones are still scored?

I think this is a perfectly valid strategy and is legal, since it states above. However, I think many refs will call a team out for that, so it will raise some debate over its legality. However, the way it is said in the rule book, it’s perfectly legal.

*cough *cough

Is this with regard to my question? I think that it’s a reasonable question. One practical application would be a robot trying to salvage the remnants of its fallen stack.

I was meaning this one:

It isn’t a stupid question. Thinking outside of the box is what champions do. If this was legal, it would open up a variety of different strategies for stacking robots.