Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

Okay, maybe it wasn't clear enough.
Let me try again: 2.13 is a prohibitive rule, the comments to 2.13 are a permissive rule, and 2.14 is a prohibitive-permissive rule. For some reason, the defenders decided that 2.14 is the key rule with the highest authority. In reality, all rules are equal; at best, we can talk about a conflict of rules. But it's definitely not the case that "he didn't violate anything." This is like ignoring the amendments to the rules that are developed for different scenarios. And although I don't see a conflict of rules here, or rather, someone does see it, and even if we assume that there is one, then the higher authority should determine the rule that has the highest authority for a specific situation, and then make changes or additions so that these conflicts do not arise.
In general, if all the rules were perfect, why would we need the Arbitration Committee? Why would we need courts if laws are in effect in the world?
Of course, we could have voted for them, but we voted for a rematch. This is exactly the situation where the rules are not enough to make the decision obvious.
I'll repeat what some forum users said: no matter what the decision, someone would be unhappy. And the saddest thing is that the further we go, the more questions and demands there will be. It's unpleasant when this turns into a squabble and a circus, but it has become an integral part of the world.
By the way, in private messages, people are writing that Red is just a friend or a cool guy, and the rules, therefore, are just something to be bent, something to engage in nitpicking...