[WestMichBlue]

"I would not call interference unless I believed the runner intentionally tried to block fielder's vision. If she runs normally to the next base, she's OK unless there's contact."
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Why are you saying that "intent" is required for an interference call? I believe that "intent" is only considered for interference with a thrown ball, and attempt to prevent double play. Why is contact required? The only time "contact" is considered is when it is malicious.
=============================

"I've seen umps (wrongly) call interference simply because the fielder shied away from a runner who was doing nothing more than advancing"
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

So F6 moves into the basepath to field that ball and the runner, at the last second, twists away to avoid contact. No intent, no contact. But F6 flinches, to protect herself, and the ball scoots by. An ump is "wrong" to call that interference? FED book says that interference is an ACT that, among other things, "hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."

I would have to say that generally I am inclined to protect defensive players. Am I wrong in guessing that you tend to protect offensive players?

(Don't misjudge my intent here. Not trying to start a fight, just to keep the conversation going.) WMB