You make the call

[AtlUmpSteve]

I suggest you read the words that are actually rule 8-6-18 without paraphrasing what you believe the rule intends.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I suggest you read the words that are actually rule 8-6-18 without paraphrasing what you believe the rule intends.

And which play would this be in reference to? I am assuming you are talking about play 1, because what I find online has to do with a RETIRED runner. In play one, there was not a retired runner. As stated in the OP, the throw hit her "before she touches the plate", thus she is not a retired runner, but a runner attempting to come home on a passed ball.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

And which play would this be in reference to? I am assuming you are talking about play 1, because what I find online has to do with a RETIRED runner. In play one, there was not a retired runner. As stated in the OP, the throw hit her "before she touches the plate", thus she is not a retired runner, but a runner attempting to come home on a passed ball.

Never mind, found the 13 book and saw they reorganized the rules since the 2010 book I saw online.

Ok, technically the little hopstep would be grounds to declare the runner out, HOWEVER, this is where the technical and the practical rules applications require officiating. Was she gaining an advantage by her action of losing contact with the base for a split second while she adjusted her feet? No.

How often does this happen at all levels of softball? I'm sure its a lot more than it gets call.

The biggest complaint with a call like this is consistency. This is both between umpires and from the same umpire.

As stated above, the same umpire had a clear view of the runner 3 feet off the base and I had to call the out from behind the plate because he he did not call it. (he even told the coach "yes she was off" after I made the call).

Also, this rule is one of the worst for inconsistency among umpires. I personally will not call a player momentarily losing contact because she is switching her foot position, yet other umpires will. This is because some umpires rule to the letter of the rule, while others rule to the intent of the rule. I don't think the intent of the rule is to call a runner out when she loses momentary contact with the base without making any movement to advance her position on the base.

[RKBUmp]

Obviously different rule set, but still a case play covering a very similar situation and explanation for the call and why it should be called. When umpires start determining "intent" of the rule and if an advantage was gained or not it becomes their own personal interpretation of the rules. When that happens rather than calling the game per the published rules, it becomes literally thousands of different rule sets based on each umpires own personal interpretations of intent and gaining an advantage.

Look-Back Rule
Runner on first base following a single. The pitcher has possession of the ball in the circle when:
1) with only a single foot on the base, the runner lifts it off the base to clean off the bottom of her cleats, thus breaking contact with the base. She does not attempt to advance so because there is no advantage gained, should the umpire ignore the violation?
2) the runner walks off the base to groom the dirt area which she churned up as she ran out her single. She does not attempt to advance so should the umpire ignore the violation?

Ruling
1) No, the runner should be called out unless she asked for and was granted time by the umpire.
2) As in the earlier situation, the runner should be called out unless she asked for and was granted time by the umpire.
In both these cases, the umpire should enforce the rule without assigning intent of the runner or whether or not an advantage is gained. It is much cleaner to call all aspects of the game based on the objective actions that are displayed rather than to assign value or intent and then decide if the action warrants a penalty. For some, that might seem “nitpicky” but it does provide predictable, consistent application of the rules without having to judge intent OR whether or not a “real” advantage is gained. That said, it is good preventative umpiring to anticipate these possible actions. For example, if the area around the base is churned up at the conclusion of play, the umpire can signal “time” in anticipation of the player’s desire to smooth the ground. If the player then simply walks off the base without requesting time, you have no violation as play is already suspended. Bottom line, however, is that players are responsible for adhering to the playing rules and the rules committee does not favor the slippery slope of ignoring rule violations when there’s no intent to violate the rules or conversely only penalizing players when they intentionally violate the rules.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Look-Back Rule
Runner on first base following a single. The pitcher has possession of the ball in the circle when:
1) with only a single foot on the base, the runner lifts it off the base to clean off the bottom of her cleats, thus breaking contact with the base. She does not attempt to advance so because there is no advantage gained, should the umpire ignore the violation?

Ruling
1) No, the runner should be called out unless she asked for and was granted time by the umpire.

I assume these are NCAA case plays? Anyway, on the one quoted, I continue to maintain (though I think everyone continues to disagree with me) that the rules do not support an out here (at least the ASA and NFHS rule). The rule does not require the player to maintain contact with the base it simply forbids leaving the base (until the pitch starts at which point they are required to maintain contact). Almost everyone here believes that is a distinction without a difference.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

I assume these are NCAA case plays? Anyway, on the one quoted, I continue to maintain (though I think everyone continues to disagree with me) that the rules do not support an out here (at least the ASA and NFHS rule). The rule does not require the player to maintain contact with the base it simply forbids leaving the base (until the pitch starts at which point they are required to maintain contact). Almost everyone here believes that is a distinction without a difference.

Originally Posted by NFHS

8-6-18 The runner is out when .... The runner fails to maintain contact with the base to which the runner is entitled until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.

Originally Posted by NFHS

8-7 The lookback rule will be in effect when the ball is live, the batter-runner has touched first base or been declared out, and the pitcher has possession of the ball within the pitcher's circle. 8-7-3 Once the runners stops at a base for any reason, she will be declared out if she leaves the base.

How do you find a distinction here? Once she stops on a base, the two rules combine to mean she cannot lose contact while the ball is live and the ball is in the circle until the pitch leaves the pitcher's hand.

ASA 8.7-S and 8.7-T(2) have identical wording.

Frankly, the wording is MORE lax in NCAA.

Originally Posted by NCAA

12.8.13.3 The runner is out .... When, once she returns to a base for any reason, she leaves the base, unless ..... the pitcher releases a pitch to the batter.

So, not even fails to maintain contact, leaves the base. Yet, any loss of contact IS leaving the base.

@youngump, you're looking for a distinction that doesn't really exist to justify not wanting to appear nitpicky.

@chapmaja, you are paraphrasing the actual rule to meet YOUR interpretation of the intent of the rule, you are NOT applying the rule. That may suggest that your multiple questions about every game situation at your JV level games should suggest you read, listen, and apply, rather than interpret. You note consistency is the issue with coaches, yet you refuse to acknowledge that to be consistent, you must either call ALL of the actual infractions, or call NONE of the infractions.

There are more common sense ways of dealing with the "it's too nitpicky to call outs" in some of these situations, without attempting to state it isn't the rule, or you don't judge it violates the intent of the rule. Shifting feet on the base; sorry, coach, I didn't see that happen, I was watching the pitcher, and the ball status, and ......, and I will be more vigilant in watching all runners (including yours should not be verbalized). Standing next to the base without touching it without anything happening, or a runner wanting to clear cleat or slide tracks; coach, I granted time, I just didn't make it a huge presentation that would make me the center of attention. You mention to base coaches that it IS a violation if you see it and the ball is live, and that you would hate to have to make that call, BUT I will if your runners can't maintain contact with the base.

When you're calling NCAA on TV, and/or the game is being video'd by the teams and will be taken apart frame by frame; well, you better call time as a matter of preventative officiating as suggested by the case play (after the ball is in the circle, mind you) or call the violation.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

How do you find a distinction here? Once she stops on a base, the two rules combine to mean she cannot lose contact while the ball is live and the ball is in the circle until the pitch leaves the pitcher's hand.
@youngump, you're looking for a distinction that doesn't really exist to justify not wanting to appear nitpicky.

You can certainly read it that way. It's not more natural then reading it the way I suggest, it's just the way you are used to.
Consider a couple of points. First, in your reading, the lookback rule makes it completely unnecessary to have a rule that says you have to maintain contact until the pitch. (Since in your case the runner would always be out under the lookback rule.) Second, the rule requiring the runner to maintain contact is clearly meant as a restriction during the pitch. It says until the ball leaves the pitchers hand. In some sanctions, the pitcher can put the ball between her legs to fix her hair and still have control, and in all sanctions she has control when it's in her glove. Further, the look back rule is off when the pitcher fakes a play. You certainly couldn't get that result from the pitching rule. (The lookback rule is off, so she can leave the base, but she has to maintain contact unless the pitcher throws the ball?)
If you want to read leave and maintain contact as the same thing, I have less problem with that but it seems evident that 8-6-18 and 8-7 do not apply to the same time period. (Though the last part of the exception in the ASA rule to the lookback rule applies to a pitch being released, which cuts against what I'm saying.)

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

There are more common sense ways of dealing with the "it's too nitpicky to call outs" in some of these situations, without attempting to state it isn't the rule, or you don't judge it violates the intent of the rule. Shifting feet on the base; sorry, coach, I didn't see that happen, I was watching the pitcher, and the ball status, and ......, and I will be more vigilant in watching all runners (including yours should not be verbalized). Standing next to the base without touching it without anything happening, or a runner wanting to clear cleat or slide tracks; coach, I granted time, I just didn't make it a huge presentation that would make me the center of attention. You mention to base coaches that it IS a violation if you see it and the ball is live, and that you would hate to have to make that call, BUT I will if your runners can't maintain contact with the base.

Is this an invitation to lie to the coach? Or are you saying, work very hard not to see it so you can tell the coach you didn't?