Look back rule - point of emphasis in NFHS?

[GIMNEPIWO]

Monday night NFHS ... BR hits to F6 who throws to F3 ... BR runs through the bag - Blue calls BR safe - BR thinking she was out ( she was ) turns to her right, slaps hands with the Base Coach and starts retreating to the 1st base dugout - Base Coach starts yelling to 'get back to the bag' - BR is confused, about half way to the dugout but runs back to the bag ... Blue calls her out ... Not knowing exactly what he has, I ask for a meeting ... Thinking he has her for abandoning the base I say 'she never made it into the dugout' ... He says he has her on the 'look back rule' ... Well, I tell him firstly, 'the ball never made it back into the circle' ... Home plate Blue concurs and now they have her safe at first ... But in this converstaion they say that that very scenario was discussed as a point of emphasis at the clinics this year ... Since I didn't attend any clinics this year, what are they confused about ?

* This was a very distant away game and these gentleman are not part of the Umpires Association that I was a member of

[Comp]

Since you say the ball had not returned to the circle, as you have said, the lookback rule would not have been in effect. However, if the ball had been in the circle 8-7-4-E would apply.

A batter-runner who overruns 1st base toward right field, then turns right, is committed to 1st base and must return to 1st base.

By not returning immediately to 1st and heading toward the dugout, if the ball had been in the circle she would have been guilty of a lookback violation.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Since you say the ball had not returned to the circle, as you have said, the lookback rule would not have been in effect. However, if the ball had been in the circle 8-7-4-E would apply.

A batter-runner who overruns 1st base toward right field, then turns right, is committed to 1st base and must return to 1st base.

By not returning immediately to 1st and heading toward the dugout, if the ball had been in the circle she would have been guilty of a lookback violation.

Yes, that is what I've got had the ball been in the circle ... Lets assume that it was ... The BR DID return to first base ...

[Comp]

The lookback rule requires the runner to "immediately" return to the base. Heading toward the dugout is not immediately returning and would be a violation of the lookback rule.

[GIMNEPIWO]

The lookback rule requires the runner to "immediately" return to the base. Heading toward the dugout is not immediately returning and would be a violation of the lookback rule.

Comp ... with all do respect ... I'm not trying to be a wise as*, I just want to make sure I've got it right ... The responsibilties of a 'runner' are different than a 'batter-runner' , are they not ? There is different wording in and Article 2 and Article 4 ...

[MTR]

The lookback rule requires the runner to "immediately" return to the base. Heading toward the dugout is not immediately returning and would be a violation of the lookback rule.

Comp ... with all do respect ... I'm not trying to be a wise as*, I just want to make sure I've got it right ... The responsibilties of a 'runner' are different than a 'batter-runner' , are they not ? There is different wording in and Article 2 and Article 4 ...

Actually, the word immediately is not included in the LBR. However, I this may be a point of contention as there is no rule to support it, the 2012 NFHS Case Play 8.6.22.B states that the umpire may rule the runner out for abandonment.

B2 hits a grounder to F6 whose throw to F3 is not in time to retire B2. However, B2, who has not been called out, leaves the baseline and heads for the dugout.

RULING: B2 may be declared out if the umpire judges the act of B2 to be considered abandoning her effort to run the bases.

[Comp]

I will defer to Ajay when he checks in as to how we have been instructed to handle this situation. He was our instructor the night we had a rather lengthy discussion regarding the BR and the LBR.

[Nsablue]

being an nsa umpire, i dont have a look back rule, i have offensive interference on base couch for touching the player, dead ball baserunner is out!

[MTR]

being an nsa umpire, i dont have a look back rule, i have offensive interference on base couch for touching the player, dead ball baserunner is out!

Interference for a coaching giving a high five? That seems a bit extreme don't you think and certainly not the intent of any rule that has been written to cover interference.

He did say NSA. I think it is a CS ruling, but the NCAA has a similar award that restricts touching a BR/R by anyone other than the coach or active runners on a DEAD ball award.

[Bretman]

being an nsa umpire, i dont have a look back rule, i have offensive interference on base couch for touching the player, dead ball baserunner is out!

I take that you mean that you personally wouldn't call a look back violation here, because NSA, as an organization, certainly does have a look back rule.

I've had NSA certification for a few years. Their rule says that a runner is out if physically assisted by a coach. I've never had this rule explained to me any other way than it's explained in all the other rule sets- the coach has to actually assist the runner in running the bases some way, not just happen to touch her. "Assist" means something like grab and stop from advancing, push toward the next base, help up off the ground, etc. A high five generally isn't considered as "an assist".

In fact, this is in their Case Book:

9.2v (FP), 9.2w (SP) Coaches at first base and/or third base “high five” runner
who has just hit a home run over the fence.
Ruling: Legal. An encouraging or congratulatory slap should not be interpreted
as an illegal act as long as no assistance is rendered.