Here is the nub of the argument that I and Paris are having. It
is my contention that when the mistake in the rules was found (late) it should
have been corrected then and there. Paris is arguing the rules are the rules and
you stick to the letter of the rules no matter what.

Paris argues that sticking by the rules is honorable. I argue that correcting a
mistake is honorable. I also argue that it is more honorable to settle the issue
in competition rather than engaging in political contention.

As an example of how changing the rules works to correct an error, I suggest a
recent Supreme Court decision. Until this decision there were 2,000 juvenile
offenders were serving life sentences without parole. The rule was that this was
permissible. Then the Supreme Court ruled that it was not. But they didn't just
change the rule for cases yet to be heard but applied it retroactively to all
previous cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/justices-bar-mandatory-life-sentences-for-juveniles.html