[greymule]

I believe the rule and the RS are in conflict. The way I have called this play is this: if the contact was avoidable (not necessarily intentional, e.g., ball deflects off F1 toward F6, and the runner from 2B collides with F6 who is in front of the runner and in clear position to make an out), then I call INT. If the ball deflects such that F6 has to chase it down, and F6 collides with the moving runner, then no INT.

But who knows? Maybe they neglected to delete "intentionally" from 8-7-J-4.

The 2007 rule book has the same wording for 8-7-J-4. From the 2007 case book:

Play 8.8-42

With R1 on 3B and R2 on 2B, B3 hits a ball to F5. The ball goes off of F5's glove, and F6 tries to field the ball when R2 collides with F6. In (a) R2 tried to alter their path, or (b) after having the opportunity to avoid F6 [sic; I assume this means "R2 had the opportunity to avoid F6."]

Ruling: In (a) the ball remains live and no interference should be called. In (b) R2's actions are judged to be intentional. The ball is ruled dead ball, R2 is out and R1 returns to 3B. B3 is awarded 1B.

Frankly, "R2 tried to alter their [sic] path" is a bit ambiguous. I think it means, "R2 could not avoid the collision." Notice also that the case play does not state whether or not F6 had the opportunity to make an out. I suspect that the people who constructed this case play were thinking that he did have such an opportunity.