A previous Q&A (#2182) dealt with the legality of using a small arm to sweep out a stack of 4 rings from the corner of the field. However, we believe that there is some ambiguity in the response, and we would like to ask for further clarification.
The response to Q&A #2182 specified that "[any] Rings that aren't in direct contact with the 'inside of a concave angle formed by multiple mechanisms/faces of the Robot' aren't Possessed by that Robot; they're only being Plowed". However, when two surfaces A and B meet at a concave angle, does a ring being "inside" of that concave angle necessarily need to be contacting both A and B, or just A or B?
For example,
- If the arm was used such that all 4 rings were only in contact with the arm and never with the perpendicular face, would this be legal?
- If the arm was used such that all 4 rings contact the arm and exactly 2 rings contact the perpendicular face, would this be legal?
We believe that the ruling in both of these scenarios is "yes" based on the response to the previous Q&A, but these two scenarios were never explicitly mentioned nor was a definition of being "inside" a concave angle. We expect these two to be the most common results of using such an arm, so we would like to make sure that such a mechanism is practical to use legally.