Invitation for opinions on 3" engagement rule

[jspatz1]

We are having some post-ship contemplation on the possible interpretations of the 3" engagement rule. I realize this topic has already been discussed thoroughly, but we had a certain interpretation to invite comment on.

If you have a "V" shaped inclusion with the V opening upwards such that the ball can rest in it by more than 3", this is certainly a violation of the engagement rule. If you turn that same "V" shape 45 degrees so that one leg is vertical, you have changed the orientation of the situation, but technically the ball is still engaged by the geometry of the robot by more than 3" (see pic). The rule does not say anything about the orientation of the engagement, or what the orientation is with respect to the floor or gravity.

So, does this mean that a flat top or even a domed or sloped top cannot intersect a vertical feature if the vertical feature is tall enough for the resulting "V" engagement to be more than 3"? There are certainly some finished robot designs out there which would violate if this is the case. This is related to but separate from the issue of whether the vertical "V" shape feature might control or "carry" the ball when the robot is in motion.