It does. In the case of a cruising or drifting ship that passes (willingly or unwillingly) over the position of shallow submerged rocks, and suffers the kind of hull damage that striking rocks is known to cause, then yes, "it hit the rocks" does follow as the most likely explanation of the damage, unless there's clear evidence of some other cause for that same effect, or clear evidence of some additional effect that striking rocks wouldn't cause.
In the case of a sinking ship that sinks onto the position of deeply submerged rocks, and suffers the kind of hull damage that sinking onto rocks is known to cause, same conclusion. The rocks did it.
ETA: Remember that the main point here is that your suggestion that such damage from a ship striking rock is only plausible if the rock is "abnormal" and "pointy," is nonsense.
"Captain! The anchor won't hold and the storm is driving us toward the lee shore!"
"Ahoy the deck! Surf and rocks, fifty fathoms off the stern!"
"Yarr, ye sharp-eyed scurvy dog, be they abnormal rocks?"
"No, Captain, they seem much akin to such rocks as our Lord has strewn upon many a shore."
"Aye, and be they pointy?"
"No, Captain, in fact they are curvaceously contoured, indeed like unto a fair maid's bottom, the very antithesis of pointiness!"
"There, ye see, ye cowardly lubbers, there be nothing to fear. Break out the rum!"
