That certainly could be part of the intent of the rule (perhaps a GDC member could provide some insight?). If that is part of the intent of SG3, I do not believe it is working due to the fundamental nature of how this game is designed.
I have found most SG3 violations occur for two reasons. First, there is a robot scrum around the platform before the 30 second mark (as a last ditch effort to grab mobile goals before 30 seconds), with contact being made with the platform as the timer ticks down to 30 seconds. And second, teams are trying to grab a mobile on the ground in the opposing alliance’s Home Zone. Those mobile goals teams are trying to grab are often not close to the platform itself, but the relatively large size of the platform combined with infinite transitive contact often results in “contact.”
The one intent we know for certain about SG3 is in the rule itself:
…The intent of this rule is to prohibit Robots from directly inhibiting their opponents’ ability to utilize the Platform at the end of a Match.
SG3 is successful in doing this, but at the cost of the problems outlined in the original post. I believe this rewrite is still successful in meeting the stated intent in SG3, but it also adapts to the reality of this game rather than wishing teams played it a certain way.
My personal opinion is that DQs should only be reserved for true match affecting scenarios and should be rare. I acknowledge it will be slightly more difficult to determine what is and what is not match affecting compared to the current SG3. But, determining this usually takes the form of “well if x didn’t happen, y and z likely would have occurred” and then you use the scoring tablet to look at how the score would have hypothetically changed. There is a lot of historical precedent on how to handle what is match affecting.
That being said, if the elevation bonus was replaced with a warning AND the G14 loophole was closed, I could get on board with a compromise like this. However, I still think the current disqualification system is a problem and can strive to be better.
I am a slightly confused by exactly what you mean here as I linked 3 Q&As, so let me know if I am not interpreting your statement correctly.
If you are referring to Q&A968, where a blue robot dies and gets deliberately pushed by red into the red platform, that is a clear cut violation of G14 on red. Per G13, acting defensively just means you do not get benefit of the doubt protection in questionable situations, it does not mean every ruling will be against you. If you are at the edge of the opposing alliance Home Zone and you get continuously pushed by your opponent all the way into the platform for the purpose of being forced into a penalty, that is not your fault. I previously linked this Q&A from In The Zone, but this explains how the rule would be enforced.
I originally had more discussion on this, but yes, It would be enforced the same. Although there are some silly hypothetical scenarios that can occur with infinite transitive contact, it makes sense to be written this way as it is extremely unlikely those hypotheticals ever happen. Setting a limit wouldn’t make much sense because then refs would mentally have to keep track of the number of objects that are touching and would lead to scenarios where teams would go “Ah ha! I have interfered with your platform with 3 objects instead of 2 so it’s technically legal!” But yes, if the GDC wants to keep “transitive contact” (provided the necessary changes are made to eliminate its bad qualities), that would be fine.