The most common arguments I have been told are:
- "R2 is interfering, in a non physical way, with the defender's try at a double play." This seems silly to me. Nowhere in the rules does it say that avoiding a tag can be considered and interference. 7.08(b) applies to interference, and it seems clear about what an interference is... and (I think) cannot apply.
- "R2 cannot make a travesty of the game by running back." Well this would be 7.08(i), but as stated, it regards running back to a previous base once the next base has been reached... so it doesn't apply.
- "R2 *MUST* run forwards because he is forced." Well nobody has ever been able to show me where this is written.
The one doubt I do have, but which has never been used to justify this ruling is in 7.08(a)(1): "
He runs more than three feet away from his baseline to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner’s baseline is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely;". Now... usually in geometry a line extends to infinity both ways... but someone could interpret this a a *base-segment* which extend just from where the player is, to the base he is trying to reach... then moving more than 3 feet back towards the previous base would actually apply.
As said, nobody actually ever proposed this interpretation and I do not expect it to be proposed. OTOH I would expect it to be explicitly described in a case, were it appliable... since it is really quite far fetched.
As for italian rulings... well the FIBS does want to play the same game everybody else is playing. That's the reason our rulebook is an exact match of yours (even though the translation is not always perfect). If MLB umpires consistently interpret rules one way or the other, I'd expect ours to follow.
Regards and thanks for the answers,
Marco