Sorry, but I see value to something like this.
The challenge in understanding the rules is in being able to apply them to unusual situations. The situation described in the OP is pretty outlandish, but the process of working through to the correct ruling demonstrates how the rules can be properly applied in any event.
Not to mention that coming up with scenarios where people could twist a rule is the best way of finding out if there are any gaps in the rules that should be addressed. It certainly helps to have an overarching rule that gives committees power to deal with 'serious breaches' on a case-by-case basis, but it never hurts to try and legislate for these gaps as well.
Rules are always in an evolutionary state. There will never be a 'finished' version of the rules.