It's an almost entirely personal thing.
The "rules" tell you what usually works, but any number of non-standard arrangements may work for a few or some or many or most people for reasons that the rules do not cover.
In this case I personally do not overly like the arrangement either, BUT that doesn't mean that its wrong, just that I may have done it differently for personal reasons. And any number of internationally recognised judges MAY have liked it as it is. My opinion doesn't count for much :-).
In this case I do not think that you can attempt to analyse the image without at least acknowledging the railings on the left. The photographer almost certainly intends that the line of vision or attention will be 'drawn' by the railings towards the character at left. For me that does not work well BUT pre-mentioned internationally recognised judges may think otherwise for reasons that are not as yet wholly obvious to me. (If they were I might be one :-).
To my eye the image is under-saturated, the lighting on the lady's dress creates a strange see-through effect which is not actually real (looks literally as if she has legs up to her waist) and the fence is in the wrong place to be an eye-leader. BUT others may well think otherwise.
FWIW, if I'd been producing this image I'd have either cropped the fence (squarish image) or if I had to maintain a landscape aspect ratio, included scenery at right to more centre the characters, as per your example 2. Slightly more headroom or smaller characters may have provided a slightly better visual effect, but I'd hesitate to try and fit it to "rule of thirds" terminology.
FWIW, again, and it's personal, I tend to almost consciously ask "Does this fit rule of thirds after I've framed it as I like it. If not, would moving it towards rule of thirds make me like it more". If yes/- then so much the better. If yes/yes then I may well change it. If yes/no then odds are I'll leave rule of thirds compulsions to others and leave it the way I like.