No "Intent" in interference

[JefferMC]

It seems to me from what I've been reading here (no, I don't have the book) is that the basis is:

What ACTION did the offensive player/coach/whatever take that was outside the norm of what they would normally be doing that caused interference? ("outside the norm" are probably my coloring).

If the team had been hook sliding into 2B all day, then I don't see that they ACTED to cause interference.

If the batter MOVES to the back of the box, getting in the way of a snap throw to Third, then they ACTED, thus INT. If she had remained in a more normal spot, then no ACTION happened, thus no INT.

It seems to me that in the past, we've seen an action and were supposed to decide whether the "deviant" action was intentional. Now, whether or not the action was intentional, if it deviated from what we expect, it's INT.