One of my least favorite things is when a good RPG gets interrupted by rules lawyering. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the sparcity of rules in a game and the amount of arguing with the DM - while it might seem at first glance that if there are no rules to cover a given situation, it would be open for debate, in practice that normally means that the DM just makes a ruling and play moves on. Games that attempt to nail down every possiblity with their ruleset seem to open themselves up to players second-guessing the DM, quoting the relevant passage and bickering about the exact interpretation.
4th Edition D&D is, whatever else one thinks of it, a very tightly designed game that has eliminated many "extraneous" elements that bogged down the DMing side of running a 3rd edition game. Monsters and NPCs do not have extensive skill lists and are not constructed using the same mechanics as PCs - if you look behind the scenes at a 4e campaign, it is much like looking backstage at a play. You will see that all the beautiful set pieces are actually flat constructs, unpainted from behind, and there are people franticaly memorizing their lines in the green room. One thing this emphasis on only providing rules for things that come up in play has done is to make the 4e ruleset an amazingly cohesive and comprehensive thing. It has an internal logic and almost any action a PC could attempt is covered in the rules.
What I have noticed in practice is that this leads to a lot of arguing with the DM. Well, I should qualify that and say that one player in my group does a lot of arguing with the DM. He is an excellent role-player who really gets into the spirit of his character, but if the DM rules that he cannot do something that the rules says he can do, he gets quite upset. The rules are pretty straightforward and when they say you can identify a magic item with the use of the Arcana skill, by gum, he wants to identify that item and he does not want to hear that the strange glowing box that seems to be animating all the zombies cannot be identified without taking a short rest and looking it over more thoroughly. When his legs get severed at the ankles and he attempts to move around on his stumps, he does not think that should count as the "prone" condition as the DM ruled because the text of prone clearly reads that prone applies only when you are lying down.
I suppose that this player could and would have argued with the DM in any edition, but previous editions made it explicit that the DM was going to have to make rulings to keep play moving forward. There were huge lacunae in the design space of every edition up through AD&D 2e, and these gaping holes were patched with the understanding that the DM was the final arbiter. I grew up with the understanding that the DM was god in an RPG, and it seems that this understanding has shifted. In 4e as written, it seems like the rules are god, the rules are the be all and end all, if there is a gap in the rules it will be patched up with the ever-accumulating erata that makes much of the text in the original core books completely out of date if you do not have the D&D Insider account.
I will have to go back and reread the 4e Player's Handbook and DMs Guide and see if there is any sort of mention that the DM can and should ignore the rules as he or she sees fit. The very nature of the rules discourages this sort of thing, but it would be interesting to see if there is at least lip service paid to the idea of DM as final arbiter.