Makes sense. But how would it be explained to the fans and audiance that a champion that won his match (remember, we don't know who was supposed to win), and retains his title, only to have it stripped of him later by a GM or by Vince himself? How do they maintain a legitimacy in their pretexts for removing a belt or when someone wins when they aren't supposed to? And what if the other wrestler just says 'to hell with this, I'm supposed to win and you're not letting me', and he just walks out?
What kind of a story do you cook up for something like that? While for a person that walks out you simply could say he was a coward or something and the match is a forfeit, how is the person 'breaking the agreement' so to speak, being legitimately punished in public view?
To us this person will look as if he won fairly, when really, he's the bad guy that should be punished. It isn't fair that the person who was trying to do their job ends up getting all the heat initially in this example.
In Vince's case, or whomever is responsible, how does the script repair the damage the one wrestler caused? Because now they not only have to deal with a wrestler not following the script and make up a story for that, but they have to deal with the aftertaste of the 'loser' who was actually the winner, but couldn't win because the other guy didn't let him and make up a story for that as well. How do you create a realistic scenario to bounce back from something like this? In your example you were talking about an injury that didn't exist.
Or are you saying any lame excuse will do? For the sake of reputableness, I'd like to think some thought is put into it before they find the easiest way out.