Looks like the 2007 ASA Rule Book has a way to go...
Here are some quotes that show that
INTENT is still necessary for some forms of INT.
Rule 8 - Section 2 - The Batter-Runner is OUT:
K. When the immediate preceding runner who is not out
intentionally interferes, in the umpire’s judgment, with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or throw a ball in an attempt to complete the play on the batter-runner.
EFFECT: The runner shall also be called out.
Rule 8 - Section 8 - The Runner is NOT OUT
M. When hit by a batted ball while touching the base,
unless the runner intentionally interferes with the ball or a fielder making a play.
Rule 8 - Section 7 - The Runner is OUT:
O. When a
coach intentionally interferes with a batted or thrown ball, or interferes with the defensive team’s opportunity to make a play on another runner. A batted or thrown ball that
unintentionally hits a base coach is not considered interference.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home is out. Runners not out must return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference.
NOTE: A batted or thrown ball that unintentionally hits a base coach is not considered interference.
Does this last one mean that if a defensive player intentionally throws a ball at base coach and hits him, that we have INT?
Edited to add one more:
RS #33: Interference
c) A runner could be standing on a base and a defensive player bumps the runner while watching the flight of the ball. If the defensive player fails to make a catch on a ball that could have been caught, it is the umpire’s judgment whether or not interference should be called. The rule provides that a runner must vacate any space needed by a fielder to make a play on a batted ball, unless the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when the hindrance occurs.
In this case, the runner should not be called out unless the hindrance is intentional.