Eligibility/substitution

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

NFHS Rule Book, page 64

Actually, these plays appear in the 2011 Case book, pp. 91-92. Here's the one MIB is "overthinking":

CR 10 SITUATION: F2 singles and is replaced by a courtesy runner. B2 walks.
Before the next pitch, the courtesy runner is replaced by another courtesy runner.
RULING: Legal. A courtesy runner may be replaced by another legal courtesy
runner at anytime.

@MIB: do you not have the rulings with the situations, or do you just not believe them?

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Actually, these plays appear in the 2011 Case book, pp. 91-92. Here's the one MIB is "overthinking":



@MIB: do you not have the rulings with the situations, or do you just not believe them?

I have them and I believe them. The rulings don't mention what replacing one CR with another does to the eligibility of the first one. The rule tells us that the CR is not considered a substitute FOR the STARTER (F1/F2) for whom he is running. That's the end of what it tells us.

I get it, and I'm good with it - but I may "go there" just for kicks.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

I have them and I believe them. The rulings don't mention what replacing one CR with another does to the eligibility of the first one. The rule tells us that the CR is not considered a substitute FOR the STARTER (F1/F2) for whom he is running. That's the end of what it tells us.

I get it, and I'm good with it - but I may "go there" just for kicks.

Gotcha. I don't think replacing one CR with another counts as a sub, so all of the same rules and restrictions apply.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Actually, these plays appear in the 2011 Case book, pp. 91-92. Here's the one MIB is "overthinking":

He had the casebook. I was merely suggesting that reading the rule might help. Between the two, the answers can be divined.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

He had the casebook. I was merely suggesting that reading the rule might help. Between the two, the answers can be divined.

These are FED rules - is anything "divine?"

Hey guys, thanks for the input. You cleared up my initial thoughts. I have to admit, I had not read the CB play with a CR entering for another - and that had me slightly stumped - but a CR is a CR period - still an eligible sub. Good deal. I hate when a respected party makes comments that make you question what you knew to be correct.

For the record - I have BOTH the rule book and the case book - and know the rules - I had been confused by 'others' comments, then started thinking and reading - and nothing was clearing up on my own.

It's all good - and I don't think I can even "yeah but" this one any farther, even just for the fun of it.

[David B]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

These are FED rules - is anything "divine?"

Hey guys, thanks for the input. You cleared up my initial thoughts. I have to admit, I had not read the CB play with a CR entering for another - and that had me slightly stumped - but a CR is a CR period - still an eligible sub. Good deal. I hate when a respected party makes comments that make you question what you knew to be correct.

For the record - I have BOTH the rule book and the case book - and know the rules - I had been confused by 'others' comments, then started thinking and reading - and nothing was clearing up on my own.

It's all good - and I don't think I can even "yeah but" this one any farther, even just for the fun of it.

Good question to make you think. I think the biggest problem is that often coaches want to replace the CR with another CR who is NOT eligible. That is what we see most of the time. No matter how many times you remind them, here comes the same runner to run for F2 who just ran for F1 etc.,

Thanks
David