Quote:
Originally Posted by rich2202
One can also look at the definition of Bulldozing in G12, which is defined as "inadvertently coming in contact with balls". That is basically saying that unintentional herding is not possession.
Intentions can also be inferred as a requirement since unintentional lodging in a robot is specifically defined as a possession. However, intention does leave the question of unintentional trapping. I would say that it is unintentional if it is momentary (which is not called as adverse possession, but could be called for assist possession), and becomes intentional if the situation persists.
|
It's possible to infer, but it's not necessary to the logical flow--it depends on whether you use bulldozing as the trump card or limit it to contact that's not described in the rule itself. The examples of deflection seem to fit this. Since it's a blue box, and since the blue box already emphasizes that carrying is by definition independent of advertency, the trump is not clear. Without the inadvertent carrying clarification, I could apply bulldozing to contact with non-floor balls. Either flow is logically sufficient and defensible, as there's no prescribed intent requirement. I broke down and Q&A'd it. Time to ask in public and see if that gets an answer.