when it doesn't give you an unfair advantage
when restitution has been made
when a judge or official vindicates you
when its justified due to some unforeseen circumstances
when its the lesser of two evils
when the rule breaking doesn't break the reason for the rule
when the rule breaking is done to physically protect self and/or others in a reasonable way

...there are probably more, but I'll stop

More telling is how tolerant we are to use 'cheater' as a label. Labeling behavior as 'cheating'  does little to understand the truth of what occured. If somebody tells you, 'that guy is a cheater' - naturally the next question is, 'what did he do?' Our public dialogue is improved when we use specifics (even better if we can add context) in place of labels. I hope that makes sense. I'll stop for now.