NFHS courtsey runner intepretation

[UmpJM]

PA Blue,

I will concur with Bob Jenkins, and assert that it (i.e., the interpretation) is simply wrong.

As to your contemplated quest, I assure you, it is a Sisyphean task. (Damn Jesuits!)

Think about it. It's a test question (I presume). Who cares? Let it go.

In the unlikely event that this should occur in a game where you are the UIC, use your own best judgment and rule as you see fit. If you think some "test question" governs, rule that way. If you think what the rule book actually says governs (this would be my position), rule that way.

The guy who wrote the question isn't going to be there evaluating you.

Don't get me wrong. You are not the first umpire to feel a bit of frustration over stuff like this. Been there myself, I've managed to put it behind me, and I assure you I am better off for having done so.

The one skill these tests DOES develop is the ability to answer bad questions. Which, when you think about it, can be an important skill for an umpire to have. (Goes to "game management".)

Maybe they're smarter than we give them credit for....

JM

[CT1]

Originally Posted by UmpJM

In the unlikely event that this should occur in a game where you are the UIC,...

Evidently, it's not all that unlikely, since I had the exact scenario happen to me on Saturday. Nobody complained, and I "dummied up".

Granted, this was Game Two of a non-conference DH, both schools had their proms the night before, & everybody just wanted to get home & watch The Masters. YMMV.

[jicecone]

I agree, that interpretation is not only contrary to the rule book but also the Case Play it makes reference to. The two official manuals that pretty much govern the sport.

Yes, I know every year NFHS comes out with approx. twenty interpretation usually cover new rules, POE, etc but, they are prety much in line with the Rule Book and Case Book. This off the cuff interpretation does not support either book, period.

PLAY ON!!

[PABlue]

I mostly wanted to know how other umpires around the country felt about this interpretation when I sent this out because to me it was just so black and white wrong. Now it's more of a quest to maybe get it corrected.

First this ruling was not handed down due to a test question. The scenario of a pitcher/catcher who have had a courtesy runner used for them and then needed to bat again has happened several times here in PA and the question of how to handle the situation was passed up the chain of command to the State RI and from there it was passed on to NFHS.

The problem I see is if I differ from a directive sent from NFHS to the head rules guy for all of PA, down to the local level I'M the one who's going to be in trouble. It would be almost like saying that I don't like the DH rule so I'm not going to let teams use it in my games, it's a rule that I have to follow because the rule set I officiate under says its legal.

I lurk here a lot having never really posting all that much but this directive just seemed so wrong I felt the need to speak out. Maybe somewhere in all the people who read this forum someone has the pull to get this reviewed and reversed.

[charliej47]

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.

[Manny A]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Honestly, I not only think this is wrong ... but I believe that if the CR comes up to bat, he has, indeed, SUBSTITUTED for the catcher, as they are no longer a courtesy runner. This interp is a mess. How can the catcher not bat, they never left the game and are the next batter listed on the lineup card.

[PABlue]

Originally Posted by charliej47

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]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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]

Originally Posted by PABlue

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":

Originally Posted by PABlue

"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.

Originally Posted by PABlue

...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.

Originally Posted by PABlue

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!

Originally Posted by PABlue

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Mrumpiresir]

Originally Posted by nopachunts

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.