All of this could have been avoided if there had been no prior mention of the word 'rookie' in your tournament. Could have been calling that a 'Low Tier players' tournament (which it basically is) and it would have been fine. There are no real 'rookies' in NW, or at least not enough to make it worth it for Blitz or other people to host a tournament that literally prevents anyone but rookie to play. Obviously, people whose teams consist of the newest/less experimented players will argue for the term 'rookie' to be taken literally so that they have greater chances of making a deep playoffs run.
With that being said, I like some of the ideas implemented to decide who should be prevented and who shouldn't. It means Kennedy and I won't get to play for the 13e Academy like we were planning to but so long as I don't see people similar to us in skill/tournament record/experience allowed to play, I am entirely fine with it. On the other hand, any ruleset shouldn't be taken literally for a tournament such as these and you should allow certain situations to be dealt with on a case per case basis. For example, I have an indisputable better record than someone like Ruler (Audric), been playing for longer, for much better teams, etc... yet there is no denying he has been a much more skilled player on the field across the past two years and a half.
I won't make a huge deal if he gets to play and I don't but that's just to highlight how blurry the line will remain, regardless of how complex and detailed you make your ruleset. Your number one priority should always be to prevent people whose participations are at risk of unbalancing your competition as a whole and this mindset should always be prioritized whilst dealing with accepting/preventing a player to participate, regardless if it follows your ruleset line per line.
Good luck with this!
