NFHS courtsey runner intepretation

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by nopachunts

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.]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[PABlue]

Originally Posted by 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....

Yes I have seen the original emails that was sent from NFHS to PA's state rules interp. They were forwarded on to the district RI's and then passed down to the local chapters. I guess it would be up to the chapter RI's to make sure it was passed on to the individual members of that chapter.
I don't have the tech savvy to paste it into the forum or I would do so. MTD sr has seen a copy of the email and was not assuming anything.

I'm just waiting for some blowback to come my way for posting this ruling on the forum. It might have come from the top of NFHS food chain but that doesn't mean that it is correct.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by PABlue

I'm just waiting for some blowback to come my way for posting this ruling on the forum. It might have come from the top of NFHS food chain but that doesn't mean that it is correct.

Why would you get blowback? If it was sent out as an interpretation for wide distribution, then it should be something that can be posted and discussed. It's not like you received this in a private email where the sender asked you not to disseminate.

[PABlue]

Well still no change in this ruling from FED. Still seen as really wrong by most umpires I talk to. Now here is a question that came up in our meeting last night.
Most coaches don't seem to be aware of this interpretation so do you wait and hope a team doesn't bat around to the player who was CR for? Or do you make coaches aware at the plate meeting of this ruling? Just a reminder it's not an option for us in PA to just ignore the situation and play on as we had before this ruling came out.
Has anyone heard anything from your state about this interpretation?