[greymule]

Yes, it's the pace of what happened that is troubling me, as well as the fact that there was no real chance to put the runner out. It was not the standard play you envision when you read the rule: runner stealing, batter steps out of the box and gets hit with the throw, with everything happening in a fluid process.

The batter was standing far toward the pitcher, a few inches from the line, and after the pitch she stepped directly backward. So she was standing close to the 3B line. And the catcher did not throw to 3B immediately, as if she had decided before the pitch that she was going to try a pickoff. After a slight delay, she made a sudden throw that seemed to be on impulse. It took me by surprise. And indeed she did not step out and throw. She simply stood in the catcher's box and fired the ball toward 3B. This is how she ended up hitting the batter.

To take an extreme example, suppose that after the pitch, the ball rolls away a few feet from the catcher and the runner on 3B comes down the line. The batter takes a step backward out of the box and is readjusting her grip on the bat. The catcher picks up the ball and as she is walking back to her position, notices the runner off 3B. At this point, with plenty of time to step one way or the other to avoid the stationary batter (who is admittedly out of the box), she makes a quick throw toward 3B, but the ball hits the batter and goes out of play.

Book rule of course would be batter out for interference, but something about this call doesn't seem right to me. Maybe it's because it seems that the play has developed after the batter has already left the box.

Maybe I think too much.