There's not necessarily even a problem with the rule. But the stringent nature of the rule demands equally stringent standards for how the timing equipment is manufactured, calibrated, tested, and monitored. There has been a MAJOR breakdown in that aspect in Eugene. Maybe whatever they're using in these championships is actually the best equipment ever, and everything previously underestimated the true reaction times. I don't think the 0.1 rule was ever based on a scientific determination about human limits, but was instead based on a review of field data indicating that .10 was a safe number 4 or 5 standard deviations from the mean.
It's mind numbing that there was no one in the organizational ranks monitoring the equipment and data to identify a major statistical anomaly that required either new equipment or recalibration of existing equipment, and warnings/guidance to the field officials about the issue. It seems the rules give field officials the authority to use their discretion, which they'd be much more apt to do if they realized the equipment is consistently showing reaction times .01-.02 faster than normal.