NFHS courtsey runner intepretation

PABlue

charliej47 wrote
I talked to the Ohio rules interpreter and he told me that the Circular #3 does not state the the F1/F2 cannot bat again in that half inning.

Hey I agree with you and him!!!! It's NFHS that has this screwed up not the state of Pennsylvania and not the local umpires.

PABlue

Manny A wrote
If the rule states, "Neither the pitcher nor the catcher will be required to leave the game under such circumstances," I don't see how any interpreter can rightfully argue that the pitcher or catcher cannot bat for themselves the next time around the order in the same half-inning. That interpretation is in direct conflict with the statement because it actually forces the pitcher or catcher to leave the game should they come up to bat again.

Now YOU call up NFHS and tell them they are wrong because they are not listening to PA.

MD Longhorn

We have some somewhat clouty people here (is that a word?) - maybe one of you guys can run it up the flagpole.

Manny A

PABlue wrote
Now YOU call up NFHS and tell them they are wrong because they are not listening to PA.

Well, since I don't umpire NFHS baseball, they won't listen to me either.

Here's what you quoted in the OP as coming from "NFHS":

PABlue wrote
"Because once the CR replaced the catcher...

That's their first mistake. The CR did not "replace" anyone. He simply ran for the catcher as a courtesy runner. By "NFHS"'s own definition of Substitution (2-36, Article 1), a player who replaces another player in the line-up is considered a substitute. A CR is not a substitute because the pitcher or catcher they run for remain in the line-up. Their use of the word "replace" is careless.

PABlue wrote
...the catcher can not reenter for the CR in (that half-inning) Pg. 93 CR# 3.

"NFHS" is taking the language in CR#3 out of context. It is meant to apply only while the CR is still actively running for the catcher or pitcher, not the entire half-inning. Once the CR is done running the bases (because he either scored or was retired), he returns to the bench as a player not in the line-up. But somebody has to occupy that position in the batting order. It cannot be the CR since he was never a substitute, and since the CR rule says the catcher was not required to leave the game, that puts the original catcher back in that line-up spot.

PABlue wrote
Neither could the CR bat in that position due to the fact the CR can not be used in the same half-inning.

Again, very careless language. The CR can be used in the same half-inning...as a CR again!

PABlue wrote
Therefore, the team would have to use a pinch hitter until the half-inning is over".

So, this convoluted argument results in the original catcher being required to leave the game when a CR ran for him, which is in direct conflict with the CR rule.

Nice try, "NFHS". Play again some other time.

DG

I think it very safe to say that if the team bats around, and catcher reaches base both times, a CR will be sent out both times (likely same one) and no one will say a word.

nopachunts

DG wrote
I think it very safe to say that if the team bats around, and catcher reaches base both times, a CR will be sent out both times (likely same one) and no one will say a word.

Better be the same one unless the previous CR has been substituted into the game.

Mrumpiresir

nopachunts wrote
Better be the same one unless the previous CR has been substituted into the game.

Could be anyone who has not yet participated in the game.

Manny A

DG wrote
I think it very safe to say that if the team bats around, and catcher reaches base both times, a CR will be sent out both times (likely same one) and no one will say a word.

Wholeheartedly agree.

But that's not the gist of this discussion. Someone nameless at NFHS HQ is saying that once a pitcher or catcher is removed from the bases for a CR, that pitcher or catcher cannot bat again in the same half-inning. It's a bogus ruling based upon an erroneous interpretation of a case play.

bob jenkins

nopachunts wrote
Better be the same one unless the previous CR has been substituted into the game.

First, it need not be the same one, and second, the "first CR" can't be substituted into the game in that half inning (barring injury or ejection).

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Manny A wrote
Wholeheartedly agree.

But that's not the gist of this discussion. Someone nameless at NFHS HQ is saying that once a pitcher or catcher is removed from the bases for a CR, that pitcher or catcher cannot bat again in the same half-inning. It's a bogus ruling based upon an erroneous interpretation of a case play.

That nameless someone at NFHS Headquarters is none other that Elliot Hopkins the NFHS Baseball Rules Editor. The buck stops with him.

MTD, Sr.

nopachunts

bob jenkins wrote
First, it need not be the same one, and second, the "first CR" can't be substituted into the game in that half inning (barring injury or ejection).

True. Sometimes fingers type before brain fully engages.

Dexter555

PABlue, do you know how this question even came up? I've seen this happen numerous times--more at JV than varsity, but no one ever thought twice that the catcher or pitcher wouldn't bat in their spot in the order if they batted around. To me it seems that someone misinterpreted the CR rule (as cited multiple times above), sent some strange badly worded question to NFHS and they responded very badly--at least as the consensus here seems to believe.

If I had ever been challenged by a coach I can't imagine not rolling my eyes and saying, "It's a CR coach, not a sub." If I was feeling chatty I might say, "Just because there is a rule about CR eligibility doesn't change the rule." But it's never happened to me, so I'm back to wondering about how it came up in the first place.

MD Longhorn

DG wrote
I think it very safe to say that if the team bats around, and catcher reaches base both times, a CR will be sent out both times (likely same one) and no one will say a word.

Logically, I agree with you 100%. The problem we're discussing here is that the word from on high disagrees with you (and me).

Dexter555

I've been thinking about this one today. "CR 8 Situation: The coach of Team A sends out a courtesy runner for F1 and fails to report the change to the UIC. Ruling: Upon entering the game, the CR became an official substitute. There is no penalty. F1 has been replaced and may only return if he has re-entry eligibility. Since Team A's coach did not inform the umpire that the substitute was a CR for F1, the umpire shall treat the change as a normal substitution. Therefore, F1 is out of the game."

So if F1 is out of the game only because the CR wasn't reported as a CR, then logic would dictate that in PABlue's scenario, F2 isn't out of the game and therefore can hit again in the same inning (of course if the CR was properly reported).

But further, the whole NFHS interpretation is stupid. If F2 has been replaced, he can only re-enter once. If they courtesy run for him again, by their logic he is out of the game for good. And I would argue that if they pinch hit for him because of that interpretation, he has NOW officially been replaced and can only re-enter once.

PABlue

Dexter,
I'm not sure how it came up here in PA. All I know is the email was sent out to every chapter in the state stating how they wanted us to handle this scenario. I guess the situation of the player who had batted then had a CR then got back up to bat in the same inning has happened since this ruling has came out.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The only time the CR is used on baseball games per OhioHSAA rules is when it is a non-league regular season game and I have not sent an email to the OhioHSAA State Interpreter yet. But the MichiganHSAA does use the CR in all games, regular season and post-season, and the State Interpreter did respond to my email yesterday: He said the Elliot Hopkin's interpretation is 100% wrong and will not be followed in Michigan.

MTD, Sr.

asdf

The fact that this is not mentioned in the PIAA's second Baseball Bulletin dated 4/14/2014 has me very skeptical.

It just does not add up..

PABlue

asdf,
I can't help about them not posting this in the bulletin from PIAA but they sent out the email to the district rules interps on 3/27/14. When I read it I thought it was wrong and still do but when the State and National rules gurus send you a email how do you ignore it?🙁

Dave Reed

Well,
Are you willing to say from whom the State and National emails came? Have you actually seen the original email from the National interpreter?
I know MTD Sr has said (assumed, I believe) that the decision was made by Elliot Hopkins, but I have to wonder....

bob jenkins

PABlue wrote
asdf,
I can't help about them not posting this in the bulletin from PIAA but they sent out the email to the district rules interps on 3/27/14. When I read it I thought it was wrong and still do but when the State and National rules gurus send you a email how do you ignore it?🙁

"By state adoption, we have decided ...."

« Previous Page Next Page »