I disagree with the idea that staff should only be allowed to make a ruling if there are rules that cover said situations. I feel like the solution of having vague rules would only be there as a "checkmark" and it would still leave a room for people to argue the "it's not in the rules, it's fair game". You're essentially adapting the same thing I'm asking for, just with a vague set of rules to go with it.
Here's an example. If I remember correctly in one of the Pro League finals for Rainbow Six Siege in Bank - a professional esports scene - there was an invisibility glitch that happened during one of the matches. No rules covered said situation, they contacted the admins and Ubisoft developers(in our case it would be the staff), asked for their decision and they canceled that whole round. The players themselves had no say in this decision. And that's an esports competition with serious prize pool of $75 000.
Actually, here's a link to the video:
The whole thing starts at around 1 hour 50 minutes. The build-up is rather slow as the casters don't have the information right away, but they start discussing the actual bug and the solution at 2 hours 5 minutes and then 2 hours 13 minutes. Would love to see what @Kenu take on this is.
Bottom line - this example shows how things like these are handled in a professional environment. I don't understand why we need to reinvent the wheel and try to make things even more complicated by potentially leaving room for other issues.