[bluehair]

Your flame-a-thon is amusing, but what I find more interesting is the scenerio where R3 is trying to steal home, F1 legally disengages, but delivers a throw to F2 that is in every manner (except for the disengagement) a "motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher's plate" and batter hits that throw/pitch.

Batter could/should be in-on the play and is obligated not to interfer with it. F1 could help us all out by taking an extra step or something that makes the play NOT look like a "motion naturally associated with his pitch", but he may not have time to do so. Since the batter could/should know what is going on wrt R3, I think that I would absolve F1 of his alleged sin.

F1 did all of these things:
1. made a motion naturally associated with a pitch;
2. had the wherewithall to recognize what was going on;
3. disengaged legally; and
4. did all that he could do to get an out.

Given all these being done, I'd take the opportunity to take the out. Call no balk, batter interference.