We should never shrug our shoulders at any law but look at why it was written in many cases. We all know the laws are changed and worded with a narrow focus and often without thinking about consequence. The main purpose of this law is when a team plays with 12 players without being noticed until a goal is scored. But then I suspect hey generalised it to "player, substitute,..." to cover all basis without think that someone will use it for something that it was not intended for.
As with much in refereeing and wider life, I find myself drawn to the middle ground on this.
I do get frustrated by the clear aberrations in the current LOTG where one thing is written, but everyone accepts that something different will happen. Top of the list for me is the 6-second rule. Its meaning and when it should be applied are as crystal clear as the fact that it is not intended to be enforced. So either demand it is enforced (not a good idea IMHO) or replace it with something that can be. No argument there.
On the other hand, it doesn't matter how many times the laws are rewritten, a combination of the game we all love (well most of the time) and the limitations of language mean being definitive about everything is impossible. LOTG fundamentalism is no better than religious fundamentalism or any other type. At some point, common sense, the spirit of the game, what football expects, or whatever else you want to call it, has to come into play.
For me, the incident we have been talking about falls into that. Just because we could read the words literally that way, let's not use a Law written for one thing to deal with something else, even if we can defend it grammatically. And let's not pretend anyone could rewrite the Laws to remove every possible example of doing that.
A final point for me is that we do have examples in the current Laws where IFAB has tried to be definitive. What happens is the paragraphs get longer, the language becomes harder to read and understand, and the chances of it being enforced correctly at grassroots go down not up. I want fewer, not more, examples of the ball in play, offence committed outside the FOP section. I like to think of myself as a reasonably intelligent chap, but that one gives me a headache every time I read it.