Courtesy Runner in ITB

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

Why not? She earned her way on base because she is the person preceding the batter leading off the inning.

Because it quite clearly says "MUST BAT AND" ... earn her way on base. MUST BAT is pretty plain, and so is the "AND" part... and there is no reason for this sentence to be in the book unless they are specifically excluding other ways of getting on base (such as ITB) without having batted.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Because it quite clearly says "MUST BAT AND" ... earn her way on base. MUST BAT is pretty plain, and so is the "AND" part... and there is no reason for this sentence to be in the book unless they are specifically excluding other ways of getting on base (such as ITB) without having batted.

I really don't think that was the intent, just the usual poorly edited overemphasis on another point; not using the DP or a pinch-hitter and then using a CR.
Even the extreme of "earning" the way on base by making an out in the previous inning is nonsense

[MNBlue]

I don't think it was poor editing. The first year NFHS changed from DH to DP/Flex, there were a number of coaches up here that would have the pitcher as the flex with a less than speedy DP. DP would get on, flex would enter the game, and then they would use a courtesy runner for the pitcher. That way they could use the sub as a CR and not burn a substitution. The book didn't disallow this move, so it was allowed. They obviously burned the DP, but they were going to anyway, and they saved the sub for at least another move later. Our NFHS state UIC took this to the NFHS and they gave them a verbal ruling: the pitcher/catcher must earn their way on base. The CR rule was changed to reflect that interpretation.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

I don't think it was poor editing. The first year NFHS changed from DH to DP/Flex, there were a number of coaches up here that would have the pitcher as the flex with a less than speedy DP. DP would get on, flex would enter the game, and then they would use a courtesy runner for the pitcher. That way they could use the sub as a CR and not burn a substitution. The book didn't disallow this move, so it was allowed. They obviously burned the DP, but they were going to anyway, and they saved the sub for at least another move later. Our NFHS state UIC took this to the NFHS and they gave them a verbal ruling: the pitcher/catcher must earn their way on base. The CR rule was changed to reflect that interpretation.

Exactly, no mention of ITB.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Exactly, no mention of ITB.

I think that is because the NFHS doesn't include the ITB in their rules. Minnesota allows high schools to use the ITB with weekend invitationals to keep the tournaments on time. I can only guess that other states are utilizing the ITB with NFHS games as well, in some capacity.

[IRISHMAFIA]

For all the "intent/spirit of the rule" fans, the CR is a speed-up rule. If the pitcher or catcher is the scheduled ITB, that player may still be on the base at the end of the half inning. Therefore, by not allowing the CR for the ITB, the purpose of the rule is defeated.

Mark may be correct that NFHS just doesn't address it because it isn't part of their rules.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Georgia requested (through the proper channels) a ruling from Mary Struckhoff, rules editor for NFHS, and was told that a courtesy runner absolutely could and should be allowed for F1 or F2 in the ITB.

The language "(or earn their way on base)" is an either/or statement, and is to be used as an alternative to "must bat and reach base legally". F1 and F2 earn their way on base the absolute same way every other player does in ITB; by virtue of being the player scheduled to bat 9th in the new inning. The language "must bat and reach base legally" is language meant to make clear that entering F1 or F2 to run for a DP or a sub cannot then lead to a courtesy runner; in that case, F1 or F2 met neither condition of the either/or statment.