I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
That is an interesting approach. So, from my perspective, I would rather tear off all of my toenails and fingernails with an ice pick than run the 3e or PF ruleset ...Anyway, the reason I'm chasing this whole side issue of VAR in soccer and football is I think there is actually a lesson to be learned here that applies to RPGs and to the lawyer/judge relationship between the player and the GM, even in situations where that relationship is healthy and respectful (which, I think we always agree is not usually the case with someone deemed a "rules lawyer").
I'm not sure where I'm going to end up in this mental exercise, but let me explain a bit of where I'm starting from.
For most of the last 7 years I've been running a homebrew game based on the D&D 3.0e rules set. The biggest chunk of the D&D 3.0e rules, and the biggest chunk of most D&D rules is the spell system, since D&D spells are individually packetized bits of narrative force. It is a very frequent situation where a player will propose, "I cast Spell X targeting Y" or "I cast Spell X to achieve result Y", and then I am as the DM asked to judge this proposition and report the outcome. And very frequently I find the first thing I have to do is examine the text of the spell to see what the spell says happen, so I will ask the player to read the spell (which every player is expected to have open if they are proposing casting a spell in the first place). And it is a very frequent problem that even after the spell is read, I still don't know what should happen because the spell is so ambiguous. This leads to me very frequently rewriting spells to make them unambiguous in application to both the player and myself, so that in the future not only can I immediately answer what happens, but the player will have a very clear idea what is likely going to happen at the time they propose the spell, and equally importantly I will not end up in a lengthy rules argument with the player over what the spell should do, and to the extent the player is inclined to argue, I will be able to point at the spell and say "What it says is clear and unambiguous."
This is actually very much to the advantage of the player, because the wonderful thing about unambiguous spells is they actually do something. And the full weight of how much better my rules after being play-tested like this is coming through when we jump to Pathfinder (for a time) and then players are like, "What the heck does this spell do and when does it do it and why the heck do the mechanical implementations of the spell so often contrast with the flavor of the spell?"
And with that in mind, I run my games with the general idea that, "Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered." Sort of a meta-rule. See, the trouble with having everything specified (or, as you put it, clear and unambiguous) is that I want players to be delighted with their own sense of adventure, and I don't want them to feel that everything must be put there for them to do it.
This is sort of the age-old variation of, "If you give the thief those skills, that means no one else can do it," debate. And so long as players adhere to the spirit of the game, and are looking to enhance not only their own fun, but the fun of everyone, I'll allow it (pigs get fed) and the ruling is incorporated into the rules of the game (adjudication as common law).
It's only when the player acts in an inequitable manner, attempting to break the game for their own benefit ("rats in a bag," aka hogs get slaughtered) that negative rulings have to be made.
I view my position, when I DM, as adjudicating with the consent of the governed, with a mandate towards increasing everyone's enjoyment. And so far, that seems to work. As opposed to being a referee.