Answered: Rule SG6 interpretation

So this weekend at a State Competition the following happened. During a qualification match a team on the blue alliance grabbed a red scoring goal and started stacking on it. The robot got three cones on this goal before realizing they were blue and moved away from the goal and continued to play the rest of the match as it should have. This probably all took place in the first 10-15 seconds of the driver control period. The blue alliance won 67-48. The robot that had grabbed the red goal was DQ’ed base on an interpretation of rule SG6. The offending robot later brought up that what he had done was not match affecting and the DQ was subsequently withdrawn resulting in the offending team moving up from #7 ranking to #1 ranking. This team was not warned multiple times, it was not match affecting in any way that could be determined as it added points to the losing team’s score. Was this at least an acceptable interpretation of the rule?

<SG6> Robots may not intentionally grasp, grapple or attach to any Field Elements or the opposing
Mobile Goals. Strategies with mechanisms that react against multiple sides of a Field Element in an
effort to latch onto said Field Element are prohibited. The intent of this rule is to prevent Teams
from both unintentionally damaging the field and/or from anchoring themselves to the field. Minor
violations of this rule that do not affect the Match will result in a warning. Match Affecting offenses
will result in a Disqualification. Teams that receive multiple warnings may also receive a
Disqualification at the Head Referee’s discretion.

Please remember that rulings by referees and Event Partners at an event are considered final, and the GDC cannot formally rule upon or overturn these decisions after the fact. Based off of your description, it sounds like the referee determined that the violation was not Match Affecting and thus the violation only warranted a warning, not a DQ.