By now there are umpteen threads discussing Rule 41. As to what makes it necessary, there are relatively few large dealer miscounts, and relatively more minor miscounts (off by a chip or two)... Accepted action makes clear that the bet is what's pushed out, regardless of an error in dealer count (with a Rule 1 exception for really large errors, see at end below...)....
Consider this situation, which has been posted previously, 4 players...
Player A: All in, pushes stack
Player B: call
Player C: how much is it? Dealer answers" looks like 96K"...... C calls
Player D: how much did you say... dealer answers" whoops, missed a chip, it's 101K.... D calls
Player A wins, the actual chip count is 106K.... If you don't have accepted action, then B owes 106K, what does C owe? 106, 96, or 101? What does D owe? 106, 96, or 101? If you go by dealer count, then C owes 96 and D owes 101.
NOW... if either C or D wins, how much will they win? The entire 106? or will C win 96 or D win 101? Since B called, will B owe 106 to C or D, or only 96 to C or 101 to D? If, say, C can't win the entire 106, but only what he had at risk (96), then what happens to the other 10 from A who's all-in? Return to treasury or...?
Accepted action gets rid of ALL of this...
NOW... if the miscount is egregious, that's what the Rule 1 exception, clearly stated, is there for. It was the addition of the Rule 1 language that broke the logjam at the 2011 Summit and led to adoption of the rule by super-majority present.
Lastly I'd point out that I haven't heard that many problems with this rule as written...
Food for thought.