After considering this from many angles and hearing those who have chimed in, I see that a decision will almost always leave people who are happy and those who are not with it. As Contest Director I let it play out but now it has gotten to the point where two members may be at odds, and I feel it is my responsibility to make the final call and bear with the fallout and with those who might disagree. Dumping it on Dave seems reckless on my behalf. With this in mind I tried to be as much a judge as I could.

In doing so I followed this criteria:
1. What the rules say
2. Intent of the contestant
3. Precedents

1. WHAT THE RULES SAY: as pointed out, the rules omitted the necessity to clarify which player one was choosing. This omission was no one person's fault as the threads are created and edited by more than one staff member. To penalize Wayland on something that is not written seems wrong. It was not his fault and as staff we should have caught that oversight.

2. INTENT: it is my belief, and apparently a shared one, that Wayland did not mean to exploit this loophole. I have seen or heard nothing to make me think that Wayland was trying to take advantage of this situation. Furthermore, as pointed out in the primary appeal, the fact that only one match was relevant and that the winner of said match did not provide any useful information but instead would sway one against picking A. Zverev yet Wayland went with him anyways (as did the entirety of the participants) supports my thinking.

3. PRECEDENTS: as is known to some, some time ago the following situation arose where two teams were entered alike ON PURPOSE. The RULE barring two identical teams from the start was not in place and the loophole was taken advantage. Contrary to the current situation, this action was clearly intentional and unsportsmanlike. Both teams obviously had the same score and as it were, they medalled denying another person their spot. In that occasion even with a declared intent, the medals were awarded since TECHNICALLY a rule had not been broken. This brings us back to POINT 1: technically Wayland didn't break any rule and cannot be penalized for it. It eases my mind that there seems to be no ill intent on his behalf and I arrive at this decision convinced that it is correct both LEGALLY and MORALLY.

The original podium stands.

Note 1: When dave g made his ruling, he used other criteria (for example he did not consider intent) and interpreted it differently. From the different usage and interpretation derive the distinct conclusions.

Note 2: we as staff try our best to provide a functional contest for fun, and this situation was an exception wrought by a combination of oversight on our behalf and an innocent omission. In the future we will amend the rules to avoid as many judgement calls as possible.

Thank you.