I fail to see the difference between sliding into a fair batted ball and being hit by a fair batted ball. Would you argue that a runner sliding into second who is hit by a batted ball hits the ball or is hit by the ball? It's a distiction without a difference, really. The references are quite clear as to what rules and interpretations are being applied. A runner CANNOT interfere with a fair batted ball prior to reaching a fielder. Further, the BRD interpretation cites the reason for taking the run off the board (5.06).
As for the "existential" double play, in OBR the runner has to intentionally interfere with the fielder, although I'm not sure Kierkegaard would grasp the concept.
You seem to be more inclined to accept the FED interpretation, which I would be more than willing to apply in a FED game. That's fair.
As for the Poland/Massengil reference, I'm not going there.
I agree with Mr.beowulf on this one, MCVUA. We have an OBR interp and a FED interp, there's really no point in citing an FED interp for an OBR play.
Oh, and one question for beowulf, regarding his quote
....""Dead wrong"??? I think Rich has already (and repeatedly)""
Since when sir, did Mr. Ives become "Rich" and not "Rat" to you?
Time wounds all heels.....
I think the difference is that in that the runner sliding into 2b is still classified as a runner,
and in the OP the scored runner is no longer classified as a runner.
As mike has already stated this may not matter as far as the PBUC is concerned.