Lol to the humour in your post. Why, it's that Andy Muir's fault again, getting Jacob banned from arbitering in Scotland.
But maybe you will say that motion of his would make Matthew eligibile to arbitrate again!
OK, Real world check.
Finding inconsistencies in rules is the easiest thing in the world.
Rules are drafted with main purposes in mind.
You don't turn them inside out because of some angle that had never been considered.
If it's a serious point the answer would be to introduce consideration of the arbiter scene at some level of priority.
You can then argue for the priority to be increased.
Meantime it's easy enough to draft contingencies for the more unlikely exceptions, applying common sense, until they become more likely.
Strength of feeling also drives rules. Players LOVE arbiters and would never dream of questioning their eligibility
But maybe you will say that motion of his would make Matthew eligibile to arbitrate again!
OK, Real world check.
Finding inconsistencies in rules is the easiest thing in the world.
Rules are drafted with main purposes in mind.
You don't turn them inside out because of some angle that had never been considered.
If it's a serious point the answer would be to introduce consideration of the arbiter scene at some level of priority.
You can then argue for the priority to be increased.
Meantime it's easy enough to draft contingencies for the more unlikely exceptions, applying common sense, until they become more likely.
Strength of feeling also drives rules. Players LOVE arbiters and would never dream of questioning their eligibility