Aside from the ethics of it all, what value do you place on these particular rules?
The value of these rule is what there intentions are when they were written. Trying to balance the level of pitching by limiting leaders and replanters from having an advantage. They felt this rule was so important that it carries teh weight of a called ball, and one base advancement for BR. That's heavy, and that means they DO NOT WANT LEAPERS AND REPLANTERS in the game.
To me it changes the way the game is played. If you feel like the balance of power between pitchers and hitters is important, and the balance of power between teams is important, then they should leave the rules as is and enforce them. These rules have been in place a long time but the lack of enforcement is new.
Do you have apprehension over where opening the rules will take the game?
Yes, because it will change the game. "The rule of unintentional consequences" comes to mind. Its unknown what will change. Dont change the rules, enforce the current rules.
Will it become so pitcher dominant that hitting compromises would have to follow?
Quite possibly. The best way to balance the pitcher/hitter battle is to work the zone size and to not allow IP's to happen.
Personally I like hitting and having fielders work and make plays. I like a good strong pitcher working over the batters in all of the zones. Opening up the zone a little more and enforcing the foot work rules that are written, to me, would make the game better.
I understand we view this differently. I too was once on the hey lets just change the rule to eliminate IP and let them leap and replant like mens game. But again, to me, the idea of the rule is to even up the teams so the playing field is more balanced between teams.