NFHS courtsey runner intepretation

[bob jenkins]

Are you sure it wasn't dated April 1?

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Are you sure it wasn't dated April 1?

I'm waiting for a team to bat around and I can use this properted interp. if they were batting around I would assume they had a good back up catcher and I would use the rule after consulting with the coach that he did indeed have another catcher who could catch. If the coach of the team that is in the process of batting around and maybe more around says that he doesn't have another catcher who can catch I would use the umpire protection clause in the rules and allow the original catcher to return.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by umpjim

I'm waiting for a team to bat around and I can use this properted interp. if they were batting around I would assume they had a good back up catcher and I would use the rule after consulting with the coach that he did indeed have another catcher who could catch. If the coach of the team that is in the process of batting around and maybe more around says that he doesn't have another catcher who can catch I would use the umpire protection clause in the rules and allow the original catcher to return.

???

[DG]

Originally Posted by umpjim

I'm waiting for a team to bat around and I can use this properted interp. if they were batting around I would assume they had a good back up catcher and I would use the rule after consulting with the coach that he did indeed have another catcher who could catch. If the coach of the team that is in the process of batting around and maybe more around says that he doesn't have another catcher who can catch I would use the umpire protection clause in the rules and allow the original catcher to return.

Aside from the fact that I think this interp is just wrong, we are talking about batting, in the half inning. When the team goes back on defense the catcher should return to catch and you should feel safer. I assume the umpire protection clause you reference is in your mind only.

[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.

[johnnyg08]

I think the question was either asked incorrectly or interpreted incorrectly. The courtesy runner isn't even a substitute by rule.