While I certainly agree that by the rulebook this absolutely could qualify as a sac fly -- allow me a bit of philosophical rambling.
I'm curious if anyone else has ever wondered about the generosity awarding the batter an "0 for 0" in a situation like this one ... or on most any sac fly for that matter.
In life, the concept of "sacrifice" is typically associated with doing (or not doing) something intentionally. In baseball, consider a sacrifice bunt. Now there a case where the batter is indeed sacrificing himself (intentionally) for the sake of advancing the runner. So being rewarded with an "0 for 0" seems absolutely appropriate.
In the case of many "regular" sac flies, it seems a bit of a stretch to think that the batter was actually intentionally sacrificing his at-bat in order that a run might score.
And in the case of a sac fly scoring a man on 2nd -- wow, pretty cool for the batter not to have that out count against his average. I'm thinking that the batter was not really attempting to intentionally sacrifice himself.
With a man on 3rd, I suppose it could be argued that, "Hey, the fly ball produced a run, so let's give the batter a break." But that logic quickly fails, because a ground-out to 2B could have produced the same result. And do we credit the batter with "0 for 0" in that case?
OK -- that's it. As I said, I'm not disagreeing, just making some observations and wondering if anyone else ever had similar thoughts.
But the truth is that this is exactly the kind of thing that makes baseball the great game that it is. Gotta love it!!