More Courtesy Runner Issues

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by harmbu

That is exactly how I explained it but the umpires told me I was wrong and the substitute was now the catcher. This is a problem I have had in the past. I can show the umpires exactly what the rule book says but the "interpret" it to mean what they want it to mean. They even told me they contacted their interpreter and that he confirmed that they were correct. I have no way of knowing that they did or did not contact him but what am I to do if he says something in black and white in the rule book is wrong?

Contact the interpreter / assigner yourself.

Raise it to the state.

Accept that it's the interpretation in your area and use it yourself.

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I disagree.

Case play 3.1.1 Sit M does not cover this situation. and the interp presented is different than the situation presented in thread No. 1. All sit 2 said was the way the coach utilized the sub and catcher was legal. It does not say that the starting catcher has to come back in the game in order for there to be CR.

Having said that, where in the rule book or Case book does it say a (Pinch hitter)/ Substitute does not become a catcher or pitcher when substituting for that player on offense.

Just give a rule reference and not your opinion, and this whole thing is solved.

If he is a sustitute on offense he is a PH, not a catcher till he actually catches. You can't project a sub otherwise you could say that Bob on second is going to be my catcher in the next half inning and then CR from him. If they go on defense and then Bob isn't a catcher you now have a problem.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

If he is a sustitute on offense he is a PH, not a catcher till he actually catches. You can't project a sub otherwise you could say that Bob on second is going to be my catcher in the next half inning and then CR from him. If they go on defense and then Bob isn't a catcher you now have a problem.

Just give a rule reference and not your opinion, and this whole thing is solved.

Show me the definition of a Pinch Hitter.

REFERENCE PLEASE such as:

NFHS 2-36-1 "A substitute is a player that is eligible to replace another player already in the line-up." or

3-1-1.d "a substitute has entered the game when the ball is live and :.........d. a batter takes his place in the batter's box"

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I disagree.

Case play 3.1.1 Sit M does not cover this situation.

It's 3.1.1N. My bad on the typo.

It includes ".. a courtesy runner would only be allowed to run for the player who was the catcher on defense before coming to bat"

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Just give a rule reference and not your opinion, and this whole thing is solved.

Show me the definition of a Pinch Hitter.

REFERENCE PLEASE such as:

NFHS 2-36-1 "A substitute is a player that is eligible to replace another player already in the line-up." or

3-1-1.d "a substitute has entered the game when the ball is live and :.........d. a batter takes his place in the batter's box"

You've given yourself the rules reference, but failed to quote the important part of that rule. 3-1-1 states that there shall be no projected substitutions, then says a runner takes the place of a runner he has replaced. You can't project to me that PR Able is going to be a catcher in the next half inning just the same that you can't tell me that Jones is going to re-enter on defense. A runner is defined as a player of the team at bat who has finished his time at bat and has not yet been put out and includes the batter-runner and any runner who occupiers a base. A runner is just a runner, he is not a catcher. That is not an opinion, it is a definition.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's 3.1.1N. My bad on the typo.

It includes ".. a courtesy runner would only be allowed to run for the player who was the catcher on defense before coming to bat"

Thanks Bob, I was able to research this over the weekend and found that both the NFHS Rules and Case book do a bad job of clearly defining a "projected substitution".

A simple sentence like:

"Offensive changes must be reported when the team is on offense and defensive changes must be reported when a team is on defense." would help.

Thanks for the clarification.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

You've given yourself the rules reference, but failed to quote the important part of that rule. 3-1-1 states that there shall be no projected substitutions, then says a runner takes the place of a runner he has replaced. You can't project to me that PR Able is going to be a catcher in the next half inning just the same that you can't tell me that Jones is going to re-enter on defense. A runner is defined as a player of the team at bat who has finished his time at bat and has not yet been put out and includes the batter-runner and any runner who occupiers a base. A runner is just a runner, he is not a catcher. That is not an opinion, it is a definition.

If these definitions were as clear as you say they are, then why does this topic come up in the first place. If it wasn't for other reference material I would still be searching for a more concise definition of this in NFHS Rule and Case Play books.

Thanks .

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by jicecone

If these definitions were as clear as you say they are, then why does this topic come up in the first place. If it wasn't for other reference material I would still be searching for a more concise definition of this in NFHS Rule and Case Play books.

Thanks .

I guess it just seemed clear to me. Just like it's clear to me that the player that is a catcher when on D will come back to bat if they bat around. The player is a courtesy runner, not a courtesy substitute. No matter what the NFHS says.

[MD Longhorn]

Crap on a cracker, people... I expect this from the various Facebook umpire groups that are one third troll, one third newbie with no training at all, and one third guys like us that know better but nevertheless try to educate the rest.

But on this site, 95% of us are Umpires. Good ones. Umpires that should not have trouble on a remedial question like this one. I'm embarrassed for the collective "us" on this thread. It's one thing if the younger or newer members of the profession (or those newer to this group) have a question on something like this one... but I KNOW several of those posting here are better umpires than they are making themselves appear.

Far too much lawyerizing and wordsmithing lately - the rulebook is not written in the same way a law book is. If it was, none of us could read it anyway.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

I guess it just seemed clear to me. Just like it's clear to me that the player that is a catcher when on D will come back to bat if they bat around. The player is a courtesy runner, not a courtesy substitute. No matter what the NFHS says.

The thread said a "pinch runner" was used. That is a clear substituion in accordance with the rules, not a CR.

Listen, I have been doing this long enough to know that I don't know everything and neither does many others. I do know how to read and understand what the rule and case books say and how to use other reference material to further understand those rules and case plays.

Just because one has the talent to put words on paper, does not mean that it is clear to others because, if that was the case BRD's Interpretations, umpire camps, and hundreds of other manuals and books would'nt make a dime.

I am man enough to say I learned something here and.....I am STILL, A DAM GOOD UMPIRE!!!

[jicecone]

Correction, "Pinch Hitter" not "pinch runner"

[DG]

I will allow a catcher to bat twice in the same inning and be CR for both times with an eligible CR. I will not allow a CR for the catcher on base to be replaced by the catcher while CR is still on base. I believe that is the intent of the casebook CR3 situation.

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by jicecone

The thread said a "pinch runner" was used. That is a clear substituion in accordance with the rules, not a CR.

Listen, I have been doing this long enough to know that I don't know everything and neither does many others. I do know how to read and understand what the rule and case books say and how to use other reference material to further understand those rules and case plays.

Just because one has the talent to put words on paper, does not mean that it is clear to others because, if that was the case BRD's Interpretations, umpire camps, and hundreds of other manuals and books would'nt make a dime.

I am man enough to say I learned something here and.....I am STILL, A DAM GOOD UMPIRE!!!

No offense meant, I apologize if it came across that way.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

No offense meant, I apologize if it came across that way.

Not taken that way at all.

I take the rules very seriously and as already stated, the one thing I know for sure is that I don't know everything about them. That is why at 64, I still enjoy every inning, every game.

Have a good season.

[bsaucer]

If a coach makes multiple defensive changes while his team is on defense, he indicates their batting order at the same time... But can a coach make defensive changes while his team is batting?