Pete Rose, the Hall, and competing statutory interpretation

Given news that Pete Rose died Monday at age 83, I re-up this post discussing two TV documentaries (one new, one a few years old) about Rose and the Hall of Fame, specifically this point about posthumous Hall induction that has become newly relevant:

Someone (I think long-time Reds announcer Marty Brennaman) says it would be a tragedy for Rose to be inducted posthumously. I wonder. Rose supporters argue that the Hall is a museum that should record the history of the game and its players; Rose deserves a spot because the story of baseball (and certainly not the story of baseball in the 1970s and early '80s) includes Rose. But it also is a shrine, a way to honor, grant a title ("Hall-of-Famer" or "First-Ballot Hall-of-Famer"), and bestow unique privileges to certain players. Perhaps posthumous induction offers the right compromise: Rose becomes part of the baseball story for all time but does not receive the honors and prestige of--and opportunity to monetize**--being a living Hall Member.

But, as I mentioned in the same post, posthumous induction requires some cooperation and compromise between MLB and the Hall. Rose's name remains on MLB's ineligible list, even after death. Under MLB's interpretation of its eligibility rules, ineligibility ends at death (when a person no longer can hold any formal position within MLB or a team); it thus lacks any mechanism for removing a deceased player from the list. But the Hall interprets MLB ineligibility (and thus Hall ineligibility) to continue until MLB affirmatively removes a person from the list. Someone therefore must alter its interpretation--either MLB must create a mechanism for removing deceased players from the list (making them legally, if not practically, eligible) or the Hall must be willing to accept someone as not practically ineligible although his name remains on the list.

I feel as if there is a Chevron analogy at work here.