NFHS courtsey runner intepretation
 

Okay I might be WAY out there on this one but we here in PA received this interpretation from NFHS on courtesy running. You tell me if you think this is wrong.

Situation: Catcher bats during a inning and reaches base safely, he then is replaced by a legal courtesy runner. The team bats around in the same inning again reaching the original catchers place in the order.

The question is can the catcher come up to bat again in that same inning?

According to NFHS the answer is NO. :confused: Here is there exact reasoning.

"Because once the CR replaced the catcher, the catcher can not reenter for the CR in (that half-inning) Pg. 93 CR# 3.
Neither could the CR bat in that position due to the fact the CR can not be used in the same half-inning. Therefore, the team would have to use a pinch hitter until the half-inning is over".

This is one I'm really ready to hear what other umpires have to say.

Okay. I think this is wrong.

:DOK Bob I deserved that one! The question is how do you fight NFHS on something I think is so blatantly wrong?

NFHS (CR3) "CR 3 SITUATION: The coach of Team A sends out a courtesy runner for F2 in the third inning with one out. After the second out, he sends F2 back out to run for himself. RULING: Illegal. Once the courtesy runner replaces F2, F2 cannot re-enter for the courtesy runner in that half-inning. However, in case of injury with no other courtesy runners available F2 may re-enter."

PA's interpretation violates "Courtesy Runner Rule #4. "Neither the pitcher or Catcher will be required to leave the game under such circumstances".

The CR is for running only and does not substitute for the catcher in their original position. The catcher is NOT out of the game so why should'nt he bat in his original order.

Of course, this is a State association rule adoption so PA may have changed this but, I don't see how their interp fits logically.

Hate to say this guys but this is NOT a PA adoption. This came straight from NFHS headquarters to the PA state rules interpreter. This is NFHS's ruling not PA's.
I couldn't see logic in it either.:confused:

I see nothing wrong with the catcher batting twice in same inning and same courtesy runner used both times. I think this happened tonight in a particularly bad inning for the visiting team in the 5th.

I don't see why a courtesy runner could not bat the second time around the order when catcher's spot comes up. He would be replacing the catcher in that case. Courtesy rules says he can not be used for another player in same inning but does not say he cant be used for catcher. This never happens of course.

PA:

Can you post a copy of the Interpretation that the NFHS sent to your State Interpreter? Thanks.

MTD, Sr.

Mark,
The quoted section of my original post is the EXACT wording that NFHS sent out. Sorry I've never learned how to attach documents to the forum.

I suggest you submit this situation to NFHS for interpretation. I don't think CR3 was intended to mean the team could not bat around and catcher bat again and be CR again. I think the intent was that Catcher would not replace the CR while CR is on base. A CR is a CR, not a substitute, and prohibiting the catcher from batting would make the CR a sub in that half inning.

Guys I'm not sure if some of you read the first post completely. This scenario WAS presented to NFHS and the quoted part of my post is the OFFICIAL ruling that NFHS headquarters sent to the state Rules Interpreter for all of Pennsylvania. It has already been forwarded to all chapters and we have been told that this is the end of any discussion on this scenario.
I along with members in my chapter think it is DEAD WRONG!!!! But the question is how do you tell NFHS they have seriously screwed the pooch and need to straighten out this mistake?

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.

???

PA:

I was going to PM you and give you my email address so you could email me the document as an attachment but you can't accept PMs.

MTD, Sr.

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.