NFHS courtsey runner intepretation

[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?

[asdf]

And still no mention of this interpretation on your state's website.

I'm curious why the most recent interpretation bulletin (produced before this bulletin) covers such popular and confusing topics as "playing the game", what a batter may do on a "pitch delivered", "strike", and "batter becomes a runner"...........

......yet they make no mention of an interpretation direct from the FED that is 100% contrary to common sense and the rule, and further tell you that there will be no discussion about the matter......

This just doesn't pass the smell test.

[PABlue]

Well one problem is with fighting this is the last sentence in the email that was sent out from the PIAA Rules Interpreter. " ,as State Interpreter I now consider this matter "case closed".
I don't know about anyone else but when you are told something is done being discussed it's hard to move past that. It's almost like telling a coach that a discussion about a judgment call is over. If he continues to argue he's probably going to be ejected and I could see PA umpires maybe not being ejected but severely sanctioned if they continue to argue with the state rule interpreter over something the NATIONAL rules interpreter has ruled on.

On a side note I to find some of our bulletins that are put out to be very remedial but sometimes I think they run out of things to say so they go back to the very basics of the game.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by PABlue

Well one problem is with fighting this is the last sentence in the email that was sent out from the PIAA Rules Interpreter. ", as State Interpreter I now consider this matter "case closed".

The interpreter sends out an email.
The email addresses an "issue" that has never been brought forth.
The interpreter invites no discussion or reasoning and declares the matter "case closed".

The interpreter is an idiot.

I'm with johnnyg on this. Something is amiss in that original scenario presented or the interpretation presented. I've spoken with interpreters in six states and their responses have been.... "say what"??