2004 NCAA rule interpretations from:
Dee Abrahamson - NCAA Secretary-Rules Editor
as copied to Jeff Hansen - NCAA National Coordinator of Umpires

Yes...if the batter makes an attempt, she has earned her strike.  In 11-16... the topic is hit by pitch and the general rule is she is awarded first base with the exceptions being: making an attempt to contact the pitch (strike), making no effort to avoid the pitch (ball or strike), hit by a pitch in the strike zone (strike), hit as she misses strike three (out), and now hit by pitch in front of the plate (no pitch).

The rules say “anyone.”  What if a defensive player obstructs and knocks the player down then picks her up in a display of good sporting behavior.  By the book the runner is out although umpires know the intent of the rule and would never apply it to this situation.  I suggest you change to “any offensive team member.”
Rule 9-10d needs to add words after runner: “who has not crossed the plate” (rule changed in 2003).
The largest amount of discussion on this rule change (it really is a rule change and not an editorial change) centered around the fact that ASA changed this rule many years ago because an immediate dead ball presented a problem with this play:  a coach physically assists a runner at third (or first base) while a fly ball is still in the air (perhaps she is not tagging and the coach grabs her to push her back to the base).  If it is an immediate dead ball, what do we do with this ball in the air?  Do we get the out for the fly ball too?   How do we explain that to the coach who says: the play was called dead before the catch so how can we get an out on the catch?  We suggest that this stays a live ball to be consistent with all other rulebooks.  Or rule it a delayed dead ball, then it becomes an immediate dead ball once the ball is touched.   If there is an experienced umpire on the rules committee, he/she would have mentioned this potential problem caused by changing this rule back to the “old way” that was finally changed.

The rules committee is on the same page with your discussions.  If a player swings at a pitch which then hits her, the batter is charged with a strike by virtue of the definition of a strike (i.e…any pitch that…is swung at by the batter and missed).
The times we were seeing it was indeed with slappers but they were running forward toward the pitcher with the intent of getting hit in order to advance other runners.  They were not even moving the bat out of the launch position although that could have been coming as coaches follow the example of baseball coaches who often teach the "art of getting hit by a pitch".  The intent of this rule addition is to remove the advantage gained and anticipate it will not be taught in the future.

This deletion is actually a bit of a surprise that it passed through the system after leaving the softball rules committee this time (it had previously failed).   Umpires have never really wanted to deal with jewelry and felt that it should fall under the purview of coaches.  Some, of course, were concerned about the liability of having a "no jewelry" rule and then being responsible for something that does happen…like under a taped earring or by a tongue ring that the injured party feels the umpire should have had removed (by enforcing the rule).
So as the rules have evolved into articulating the coach's responsibilities in legally equipping and properly attiring their players, the jewelry is just the next step.  The responsibility is essentially shifted to the coach from the umpire. 
Professional baseball obviously doesn't exclude jewelry and neither does collegiate so it was difficult to explain why it was more dangerous for a woman to wear necklaces, earrings and rings than it is for a man when the risks of the game are so similar.  We could find no incidences of increased injury caused by the jewelry worn by the baseball players so I suspect that was a factor in not having our request to delete the rule defeated.  (I might add here I have heard stories from people who say they have heard of runners sustaining injuries when the defensive player has caught their loop earrings but never heard of someone who saw…as opposed to heard…it happen and can explain how the helmet didn't prevent it…interesting huh?)
Anyway, if you believe jewelry worn by a particular player does pose significant risk, you might choose to discuss your concerns with the head coach and ask them to take care of it.  Or you might chose to invoke 15-2…"the plate umpire shall have the authority to make decisions on any situations not specifically covered in the rules."  My personal advice is to reserve this last action for only the most serious cases and refer the wristwatch, rings, tongue studs, earrings, etc to the coaches to determine what they deem is appropriate.  If the plate umpire invokes 15-2 and the player does not comply, she is ejected so you will continue to be able to minimize risk to players and her opponents in those cases.

We had a very lively debate that centered around this year's change to rule 6-9 at our interpretation meeting today. The gist of the debate centered around a perceived conflict with rule 12-11. Here's the crux of the debate. Let's say that we have a field with a dead ball line (as opposed to a fence) in foul territory. The consensus seems to be that, if a fielder is positioned in foul territory with one foot completely in live-ball area and the other foot in contact with the dead-ball line but partly extending into dead-ball area, she may legally catch a foul fly ball - is this a valid assumption to make? However, this is at odds with the new 6-9-b, which says that "a dead ball is also ruled when a fielder contacts a ball in live-ball territory when any part of her body is in conctact with dead ball territory."
How are we supposed to rule on this?
a.) No catch (but this conflicts with 12-11).
b.) Good catch. no penalty (but this conflicts with the new 6-9-b)
c.) Good catch, plus catch-and-carry.

First of all, I need to point out the mistake in 12-11 note 4.  It should read "If a player contacts dead ball territory with any part of the body except (NOT including) the foot, she is considered out of play. No play is allowed, and the effect is applied."
Next, your assumption is correct that the catch is good.  We are considering adding an exception to 6-9-b to read "exception- a fielder's foot that is on, but not entirely over a line marking dead ball territory."  Do you think that would cover it?  The intent of 6-9-b was to be clear that a fielder could not use a hand or foot to brace against an object in dead ball territory (like a light pole, scoreboard, interior of a dugout...).  Since elsewhere in the book we clarify a fielder's foot can be on and extend over a dead ball line but not entirely over the line, we didn't anticipate the problem with 6-9-b but obviously there is one.

Bases loaded, count of 1 ball 0 strikes.  The pitcher has both feet on the pitchers plate, has hands separated and has the ball in her bare hand and is taking the signal from the catcher.  Her bare hand is behind her back where she is apparently rolling the ball.  She then drops the ball.
I did not notice the dropped ball immediately and my partner did not immediately call an illegal pitch.  The coach for the offense complained that she (the pitcher) can't do that.  I conferred with my partner and we ruled it an illegal pitch.  The effect we ruled was a ball on the batter and each runner was advanced one base.
Was this correct?  I consulted the 2004 NCAA softball rule book after the game and found the following.
Rule 10 Pitching Section 2   a.  Before starting a pitch, the pitcher must comply with the following: 4.  The ball must be held and remain in one hand, either bare or gloved.
Note:  Rolling (not tossing) the ball is legal as long as contact is maintained with the hand including the wrist. Effect (a)-(c)-Illegal pitch (see Rule 10-8)
Please review this situation and inform me as to whether or not the ruling we made was correct.

The ruling you made is correct...it is an illegal pitch.  It's obviously an unfortunate one with the bases loaded but as an umpire, you'll see lots of unfortunate mistakes that have consequences. I suspect the pitcher will be more attentive to maintaining possession of the ball once she steps on the pitcher's plate but it's a tough lesson.

With runners on first and second and less than one out, a ground ball is hit to the shortstop. The shortstop throws to second for a force out, with the runner from first interfering with the throw to first. The interpreters said the runner advancing from second is out and the batter-runner is put on first base. The runner from second is out because she was the runner closest to home.
I tried to say that the runner on second returns to second and the batter-runner is out. I based my interpretation on page 100 of the rule book. That says that the runner closest to home is the batter-runner and that other runners return to their bases if their is interference.

The interpreters are correct.  See 9-13e,  You have a runner who is already declared out (at second, on the force out) interfering with the play so the runner closest to home is also declared out.
For what you based your reasoning on, I assume you are reading the approved ruling after the effect of e. That case is different because the lead runner had already crossed home plate at the time of the interference (she started on third) so she is no longer the runner closest to home.  In this case, the batter-runner is the closest runner to home, so she is the final out of the double play.

When I read Rule 1, Section 57 (Helmets), I interpret the rule mean that a catcher must wear a protective helmet while receiving pithes during a live ball situation.  However, the same phrasing ("receiving pitches in a game") is used in Rule 3, Section 8, b.  In that rule, the EFFECT indicates that some players may not comply with the rule.
Which part is non-compliance anticipated in, the part about the NOCSAE label orwearing a protective helmet when there is a live batter at bat?  Or, is my initial interpritation incorrect, and the rule intends that a protective helment be worn in receiving pitches between innings once the game has started?

Receiving pitches in a game is meant to be inclusive of the first pitch she catches to the last one.  Since some catchers were not used to wearing a protective helmet during between inning warm-up pitches, they often needed reminders from coaches and umpires, hence the warning and need to immediately comply part of the effect.  Now that catchers have become accustomed to wearing helmets (through high school and JO ball) it is less of an issue and I suspect a rarity for an umpire to have to remind a player to put on the headgear.

Rule 1, Section 77, a defines when a game is declared "legally tied." However, in Rule 6, Section 17, Note 1 it states that (excluding the halted game rule) "a game stopped with the score tied is considered a regulation tie game ..."  The note makes no referece to inning.  Last year, in the second game of a double header that I umpired, we did not utilize the halted game rule and only played two innings due todarkness. There was no score.  According to the note, that would be a regulation tie game because when the game stopped with the score tied.  This contradicts Rule 6, Section 14.  I think the note is overly vague, and I am fairly confident that I understand the intent.

I will suggest to the committee that the note be re-written to read "If the halted game rule is not utilized, a game stopped with the score tied is considered a regulation tie game (if it qualifies under rule 6, section 12) or no game (rule 6, section 18), not a halted game.  It may not be resumed.