Could the update, G12 which states “game elements in possession of a robot are an extension of the robot” be clarified? It has been defined in defensive moves such as holding a cube to knock down stacks, etc. What about in an offensive situation like scoring of stacks at the end of a match? A referee questioned this at a tournament this weekend. Red had 1 stack of 6 scored. Their robot was in possession (not just touching) of a cube and that cube was touching the base cube of that stack. He felt that the way the rule is written, the stack should not be considered scored since the robot (through that cube in its possession) was touching the base of the stack. If the possession of a cube is an extension of the robot, referee felt the robot was touching the base cube of the stack since it possessed the cube that was touching it. We were referred to Figure 13 in the game manual where a robot is “touching” (not possessing a cube) and said cube was touching a stacked cube. All of the cubes of that second stack that that cube was touching were still considered scored. There is no other reference to a cube being an extension of the robot in the rules for offensive situations so either G12 only applies in defensive situations if the cubes are considered scored or it applies at all times, which mean some of the stacked cubes would not be considered scored. Hope I made his point clear. Please clarify. Thank you.
Official Q&A: VRC 2019-2020: Tower Takeover
366: cube in possession of a robot is an extension of the robot (G12)
G12d states the following:
Game elements in possession of a Robot are an extension of that Robot. Therefore, Entanglement (e.g., grasping, hooking, attaching) with Cubes that are in the possession of an opposing Robot is a violation of this rule.
SG7, a similar rule that utilizes the same principle, states the following:
<SG7> Use Cubes to play the game. Cubes may not be used to accomplish actions that would be otherwise illegal if they were attempted by Robot mechanisms. Examples include (but are not limited to):
• Encroaching upon an opponent’s Protected Zone per <SG3>.
• Interfering with an opponent’s Autonomous Period per <SG2>.
Although both of these rules reference defensive interactions as their examples, they are intended to be applications of an overall principle that Robots and any Cubes they are possessing should be considered as one entity.
Their robot was in possession (not just touching) of a cube and that cube was touching the base cube of that stack. He felt that the way the rule is written, the stack should not be considered scored since the robot (through that cube in its possession) was touching the base of the stack. If the possession of a cube is an extension of the robot, referee felt the robot was touching the base cube of the stack since it possessed the cube that was touching it.
This is a correct interpretation (assuming that the Robot possessing the Cube was a Red robot). The Cube being contacted would not be considered a Base Cube, and the Scored status of all other Cubes in the Goal Zone would be affected accordingly.