Is this batter's interference with F2
 

R1 on 1B. The batter is bunting and is fairly tall. She offers at an outside pitch and misses, R1 is going. F2 pops up to throw and batter is still leaning over the plate from offering at the pitch. One foot is partially over the batters box line. Rather than stepping forward and throwing, F2 stands upright and short arms the throw because the batter is leaning over the plate. Amazingly, the throw to 2B gets the runner. There was no contact between F2 and batter, though if F2 stepped forward and threw the ball, there would have been.

Lemme get this straight...
F2 throws out R1.
And you want INT on B2?
And there was no contact...

Sorry coach, I got you an out. Can't get another on that one. No INT. Sit down, shoosh.

Even if I did call B2 out on INT, then ok... dead ball, let's return R1 to 1B and call B2 out.

Either way, you're only getting one out.

:)

I think the crux of the OP is "F2 pops up to throw and batter is still leaning over the plate from offering at the pitch. One foot is partially over the batters box line. Rather than stepping forward and throwing, F2 stands upright and short arms the throw because the batter is leaning over the plate".
IOW, if no out at 2nd, is it INT as specified in the book or is "over the plate from offering at the pitch" allowed.

The OP specifically states that the batter is where she is because she attempted to hit an outside pitch. Where else would you expect the batter to be after reaching for and missing an outside pitch?

Foot is irrelevant.

From OP data, no INT.

As Irish said, "Where else would you expect the batter to be after reaching for and missing an outside pitch?" An Umping can't penalize a batter for her natural swing (from start to finish). It is up to the catcher to see where the batter is a clear her. Once the cathcer chooses a direction to clear the batter and then the batter moves in to her or swings her bat in to her do we have INT. It is really that simple.

Exactly, and foot is only mentioned because that was a quote from the OP. My point was just I thought SRW was missing the point. The crux or essence of the OP question is about INT or not, rather than calling a second out.