[greymule]

I find the wording of the rule text somewhat ambiguous as well, and have no idea why it is worded the way it is.

It could be because the book has been constructed piecemeal over a century, with notes and addenda and rulings tacked on instead of incorporated into the fabric of the document, and otherwise violates principles of effective written communication. If it were a legal publication, it would have to be recast from beginning to end.

The MLBUM provides another example:

"Any advance or outs made because of an improper batter becoming a runner would be nullified . . ."

Did the writers of the MLBUM choose their words with care, or would after an improper batter becomes a runner be closer to what they really mean? After all, when R3 scores after ball 4 to an improper batter enters DBT, then R3 scored merely after the improper batter became a runner, but not "because of an improper batter becoming a runner."

You may very well be correct in your interpretation. Certainly there's plenty of evidence in its favor. And maybe I'm reading too much into something that simply isn't that carefully written.