Actually, a retiring runner turning to go to the dugout is an entirely natural to the game.

The clarification, IMO, represents the view that if a runner does something such as commit an error in judgment, that too is INT. It doesnt require that they do so with the intent to interfere. The runner in #2 obviously did not intend to interfere, the runner just chose the wrong place to be. The change holds them more accountable for their actions.

Same with the scenario where last year, mccrowder was solely focussed on the umpire judging the runners intent - this year that is not required. The runner who was tagged out is then accountable not to interfere with the play.

Your points on the other examples are well taken, the only issue I'm pointing out is there is a change in the presentation of enforcement. This is shored up by Clarification #2 referencing Rule 8, Section 7 J [3] which no longer requires intent.

Its a guess as to why they make a change, provide written examples representing a change, then put out language in clinic "there is no change".

If you have another guess as to why they made changes, presented changes as changes, then said "no changes" I'm willing to hear it.

It has already been stated. Some doofus (my word without knowing who this was) was all hot and bothered that the definition did not contain the word "intent" or "intentional" and was bound and determined to make the playing rules themselves "consistent" with this. There was some thought that umpires were not making the interference call because they could not "prove" intent. They never had to prove intent; they only had to judge it based on the actions of the offense. It was all hooey that has done nothing whatsoever productive toward any improvement in enforcement and has caused umpires to conclude there is now a change to the rules that must be reflected in changed enforcement.

I mean fer cryin' out loud, of all things to be concerned about in the use of the English language consistently in the ASA rule book, why they chose THIS one is beyond me.

So now umpires are going overboard and considering a cross-eyed look as interference since it startled the poor defender. OK, clearly hype there, but definitive action to interfere is not the same thing as any slight movement that somehow got in the way maybe.

I think it would be more accurate to state: definitive action THAT interferes.

The word "to" implies intent, which of course, is not required.