[greymule]

Of course, with contact, intent doesn't matter. But absent contact, a lot depends on how broadly or narrowly you interpet the wording. There are things that a runner could do that might hinder or confuse a fielder but that I might feel shouldn't have hindered or confused. Maybe I do give the benefit of the doubt more to the offense, because I interpret the rule more narrowly. An act that I felt was intended to hinder or confuse is easy to interpret as did hinder or confuse. With an unintentional act—simply running to the next base—I am more likely to ask, "Should that have hindered or confused the fielder?" If the answer is no, then I wouldn't call interference.

I'd have to see the play, but I admit that I'm more likely to expect the fielder to be aggressive. I don't have much sympathy for a fielder who, because a runner's coming, doesn't go after the ball.