I don't know if that was directed at me, but I didn't come down any particular way, more thinking aloud. As to the ball that hit Buxton, the umpire obviously didn't fault Buck as if going after it, so it was a violation regardless of his movement. But what I was getting at, not very clearly, is that sometimes - for policy reasons, or for simplicity in application, or both - you let even unintended consequences factor into determining the penalty. For example, when I played hockey as a teen in Sweden, you'd get five minutes (instead of two) for otherwise minor stuff like accidental high-sticking, if it caused bleeding. It was easy to apply, and it probably worked as a deterrent against less accidental high-sticking, likely leading to fewer nasty eye-injuries in the long-run.
I'm just spitballing, but while pitchers that throws behind or hits guys on purpose (rightly) get ejected, other pitchers throws triple-digit fastballs with unknown intent/recklessness/control, regardlessly causes a serious injury to a player's hand, but gets [in our case] a slugger to first, and that's how it's gotta be? It would in most cases be impossible to assess the severity of the potential injury, but it wouldn't be hard to call what pitch hit the player where. And perhaps that should matter more than it currently does. That's all. And would it be so terrible to step up the penalizing of possibly accidental but bad head-/hand-/foot-hits, considering the possible implications? I can't see it incentivizing (sane) batters to take dangerous hits, but perhaps it would depress at least some hard inside pitches in high pitch count-situations, for example. Again, I don't know. But those hands and feet can be pretty pricey, as we know.