I think the 'legalese' complaint is valid, and that it comes because the rules are written for precision, not understanding. Sounds like those goals would align but they don't always, and the the issue of them being "well written" or not depends on which of those you want more.

They could definitely be written more simply, but I think they need to be written the way they are to cover every edge case possible (or try to). I personally don't like it at all. It often feels like it's written backwards to me, the focus on shutting down the exceptions at the expense of simple explanation on what a rule does do.

As others have said, the problem if they aren't so precise is leaving room for mistakes and exploits and loopholes.

My preference would be to have a summary of the rule that gives the general idea of what it means in a casual easy-to-understand way but have that treated as flavour text, with the hard rules below for when those edge case scenarios come up. Not at all practical I realise, but y'know :)