7.09d (and subsequent comment) has to do with a runner ADVANCING after being retired. I don't see how this situation falls into that comment, as I stated earlier in the thread. That comment seems to me as one for runners who are sliding into 2nd on a double play, etc.
Is there another casebook ruling that makes this situation, and everyone's certainty of no INT if not intentional, more clear? Or is everyone just pulling this interp from 7.09?
I'm just having a hard time seeing how an R1 so stupid has a rule that protects him from INT
