2005 NCAA rule interpretations from:
Dee Abrahamson - NCAA Secretary-Rules Editor
as copied to Jeff Hansen - NCAA National Coordinator of Umpires

Accessories are the things you mentioned plus foul weather gear, head gear(hats, visors, headbands), knee/shin pads,undershirts, undershorts,

B1 is a slap hitter. She makes contact and the ball bounces high in the air and then rolls along the first base line in fair ground. As she runs toward 1B, her left foot is outside the runner‚s lane. The catcher fields the ball and throws toward 1B to retire B1. The throw hits her in the left shoulder and caroms into right field. The plate umpire declares a dead ball and rules B1 out. The ruling is correct.

Rule 9-9-2 d refers to the foot must be "on the ground" to be declared out.  So if the batter-runners left foot is in the air but outside the running lane, we can not declare her out? 

R1 scores and R2 follows her but misses the plate on her slide. The umpire calls "no tag" and gives the safe sign. R1 helps R2 to get to her feet. R2 touches the plate before the tag. R2 is safe. I believe the ruling would have been different in 04 vs 05, correct? We referred to rule 12-7 e as a rules reference, correct?

And as to the second one, you have one of the rule references, the other is 9-10-d (page 97).  This is the first year we have had in text the wording about "not yet crossed home plate" as a clarification but the intent is the same as in the past.  The rules committee has not considered someone who scored as still being a base runner (see definition 1-9, page 15) and entitled to those protections.  But to avoid confusion, we added that phrase.  The concept is once a base runner has scored, she is no longer a baserunner.

Dead ball. No pitch.

The only place we address numbers is on the jersey so if a player covers the jersey (with foul-weather wear), the umpire would need to ask to see the jersey if the opposing coach is in doubt about her identity.

I believe I know what a foul tip is and I believe I know what a dropped third strike is but can one change the other?
What I mean by that is with two strikes and no one on first base the pitcher pitches the ball, it drops off the table and skips off the dirt just as the batter is swinging but she still gets a piece of it fouling it directly back thus producing a foul tip into the catcher's glove.
Question: Did the fact that she was able to foul tip it eliminate the dropped third strike? (Or is it any pitch that hits the dirt after leaving the pitcher's hand will be considered a dropped third strike?)

I cannot find rule 3 2 d in the rule book concerning both batter and runner being declared out if  both batter and previous batter who is on base use a illegal bat.
My logic was this:  3-2d states if the batter is discovered while in the batter's box, she is out. 
The Effect goes on to say that if a pitch has been thrown to the next batter, the batter shall be declared out if on base...  This does not make sense because how can a batter be on base!?

B1 is out and ejected by using the top paragraph on page 43.  B2 is out and ejected by applying the last paragraph on page 42.  The coach is ejected and the incident report comes to me.
This would only be the case for the scenario you wrote of two players using the same bat.

Play #1:
R1 attempts to advance to 3b on a base hit to right field. 3b fielder obstructs the runner (blocks the bag while awaiting the ball) before the tag play. Runner is tagged out before reaching 3b. The umpire rules obstruction and awards theBase runner 3b. 
Ref: Rule 9 Sec. 18 b (1) Effect (1) (2)  Page 107
No warning is mentioned in effect (1) (2) for a tag play involving obstruction. Subsequent violation by the same individual "may" result in a one base award......
Question #1:
On a tag play is the defensive infielder not given a warning for obstruction?  Effect (1) (2)

Everyone knows obstruction has been called because the player who was "apparently" put out is now awarded the base.  so both the offense and defense will notice the call even if their focus during action was on the play and they did not see or hear the actual obstruction call.
And as an aside, the subsequent violation may result in a one base award so the umpire has discretion to deal with repeat "offenders"

Play #2:
Batter-runner  rounds 1b on a base hit and is obstructed by the 1b upon returning to 1b.
Ref. Rule 9 Sec. 18 b (3) Effect (3) (4)  Page 108
This section contains language of issuing a "warning" The umpire "shall" issue a warning to the offending individual and notify her coach. Subsequent violation will result in a one base award.
When a runner is obstructed rounding a base is the defensive player automatically given a warning? Effect (3) (4)

In these cases, the umpire shall issue a warning because the runner might not "apparently" be put out. So the warning is a safeguard to be sure the player and coach know of the infraction. It also sets the stage in case an additional infraction by the same player occurs so that when a base is awarded, they cannot claim they had no knowledge of the first offense.
Some of our most serious injuries have resulted from players being blocked off the base on pickoff attempts. If only sections 1 and 2 were in the book, the base they would be awarded would be the one they were diving back into so the defense could freely block the base with little to lose. 3 and 4 allow the runner to be safe at the base they would have reached... but gives protection from being blocked off on every pitch because the subsequent penalty is a mandatory one base award.

Aren't sunglasses designed to be worn on the face. shielding the eyes? Wearing them 'on the head' could be on top of the head/hat.

Is there a definition of 'brawl'? Could a brawl be a verbal confrontation as opposed to physical?

ASA rule 7-6P Exception reads in part, "If no play is being made and the batter accidentally interferes with the catcher's return throw to the pitcher and a runner(s) advances safely, the umpire should call time and return the runner(s) to the base occupied at the time of the accidental interference."
I cannot find a comparable provision or interpretation for NCAA softball although I believe I (hopefully correctly) recommended to readers in the December 2002 issue of Referee that NCAA umpires should follow the ASA dictum.
Here is the exact play: Play 1: R1 is on first base with left-handed hitting B1 at bat. F1 delivers a pitch that's called a strike. With no apparent play obvious, B1 accidentally interferes with F2's return throw to the pitcher and after the deflection, R1 advances to second. Ruling 1: ASA 7-6P Exception says for the umpire to call the ball dead with no interference called and return R1 to first. Should that ruling be used for NCAA softball?

I also note that NCAA (9-8b Exception Note 2) covers a different situation which reads, "If the catcher on her throw to a base hits the batter or her bat while she is in the batter's box, the ball is live and there is no interference unless the contact is intentional and initiated by the batter." Obviously, the NCAA ruling covers the situation when a throw is being made to a base and the play is not just a routine return throw from the catcher to the pitcher when no apparent play is about to occur."
I believe that all fast-pitch codes would rule that play as follows: Play 2:
R2 is on second base when left-handed hitting B1 takes a strike. Attempting to pick R2 off second, F2's throw strikes the motionless bat of of B1 who is standing still in the batter's box and the ball deflects out of play into dead ball area. Ruling 2: The ball is alive when F2's throw strikes B1's bat but becomes dead when the ball deflects out of play. R2 scores on the play and B1 remains at bat with a strike one count.
I assume that is officially correct for NCAA softball?

Is it a 'No Pitch' if the batter, while out of the batter's box, gets hit by a pitch before the pitch has reached the plate?

Must kneepads be worn on the knee while at bat, running the bases, or on defense?

Is it considered an attempt (and hence an ejection) if the coach asks the umpire if she may have a conference and the umpire says "no, you have already had one this inning" and she says "okay" and does not take a conference?

No, the attempts to hold is designed to stop the representative from running past the umpire and by the time the umpire catches up, they are within earshot of the players. Then the rep, speaking to the umpire, but loud enough for the players to hear, shares the strategy he/she wants to deliver. Because he/she never talked to the players, it's not a conference however the message was delivered so there needs to be some consequence.
On the other hand, if the rep starts to approach his/her player and the umpire reminds him/her that a conference has been used, that's just good, preventative umpiring.

It is ok for the coach to talk to her defense while the new pitcher is warming up.
1. Coach takes one defensive conference in an inning.
2. If he/she wants to remove that pitcher later in the same inning, the coach will request a suspension of play, approach the umpire before going to the pitcher's circle and inform the umpire of the pitching change.
3.  While the new pitcher is warming up, since there is a legitimate suspension in play, the coach would be allowed to talk to the defense.
Rule 6-11a1 has an "Exception: On each pitching change when the pitcher has not yet pitched in the inning, one additional conference is permitted."  I think this means that if, later in this same inning, the coach wants to visit the current pitcher, he/she can then use this additional conference to do so.  

The NCAA operating code requires that any game that involves an NCAA school MUST use NCAA playing rules to count as a contest.  (The alternative is that if other rules were used, it would be a scrimmage and not an actual contest but that also might have liability implications if the equipment rules are not followed...see later in email)
So...assuming at least one of these schools is an NCAA school and wants the game to count,, they must use NCAA rules and that includes compliance with the ASA bat performance standard which is tested in a laboratory.  If the contest is between 2 non NCAA schools, I have no role in arbitration so that would go to their governing bodies (ie NJCAA, Cal JCs, NAIA, women's professional league, AFA...).
As a personal comment, I would hope that these groups that use our rule book , use it as written but I do know that some do make modifications to the rules to better suit their players.  Since that is out of the realm of my responsibilities, I don't always know about them but when they involve equipment, I try to get them on board.  The ASA and NCAA have spent a lot of money looking at the science and safety of the sport and use that research to make the rules.  For groups to alter those, I hope they have reasons that are both good for their game AND can stand up in court should someone get hurt.
SO the short of it is yes, if the game involves an NCAA school, they must use the NCAA  rules without alteration.  If the game is between teams of one of the organizations listed earlier, you'll need direction from that group as to which, if any, rules they alter.  If the game is between teams of 2 different organizations (ie NJCAA school vs NAIA), the playing rules to be followed should be spelled out in the game contract.

Runners at 1st and 2nd, 2 outs.  Ball is hit deep in the outfield.  There is a hard collision between the runner from 2nd and a fielder not about to receive the ball - both are on the ground, the runner from 1st passes them and scores.  The ruling on the field was that the runner from 2nd was awarded the plate and  the runner from 1st is out for passing the other runner.  I believe that this is incorrect.  I think that the runner from 1st should have been placed on 3rd or awarded home if she could have made it had the runner from 2nd not been knocked silly per rule9-18b1Effect (page 107).

This is for the effect for (3) and (4) so there might indeed be a throw in 3...maybe on a play on a batted ball, maybe a pickoff...

In the case of 3, we are talking only about rounding and returning to a base so these are typically the nuisance times that a fielder stands at the base and the runner and fielder make contact.  Once she is warned, award the next base, no discretion.

These are cases I've not heard so i need to ask for some consensus from the rules committee.  However my initial thought is the runner is out at the time it is noticed as she is on a base that she is not entitled to occupy. I'll follow up though on these.
The runner and umpire are responsible for knowing where the runner is to be.