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.

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

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.

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!!

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.:rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Now YOU call up NFHS and tell them they are wrong because they are not listening to PA.

We have some somewhat clouty people here (is that a word?) - maybe one of you guys can run it up the flagpole.

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":

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.

"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.

Again, very careless language. The CR can be used in the same half-inning...as a CR again!

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.

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.

Could be anyone who has not yet participated in the game.

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.

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).

That nameless someone at NFHS Headquarters is none other that Elliot Hopkins the NFHS Baseball Rules Editor. The buck stops with him.

MTD, Sr.

True. Sometimes fingers type before brain fully engages.

Who even asked?
 

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.

Logically, I agree with you 100%. The problem we're discussing here is that the word from on high disagrees with you (and me).

CR 8 contradicts as well
 

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.

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.

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.

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..

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?:(

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....

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

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.:rolleyes:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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"??