Courtesy Runner in ITB

[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.

[Blu_IN]

In NSA last year, the wording actually could have easily been interpreted that CR could NOT be used in ITB if the pitcher/catcher did not reach base in that inning via an at-bat. In some states, it was allowed. In others, it was not.

It has been changed this year to clearly allow the use of CR during ITB.

Blu

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by 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.

Any chance that will be published as a revision or at least a case?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Any chance that will be published as a revision or at least a case?

I can't say. I wrote up a case disputing the interpretation that there could not be a CR based on the wording (and intent) of the rule and rule change, and our state (GHSA) officials passed it to Mary for consideration. Next thing we know, we (association representatives) get a letter from GHSA advising that the interpretation (as advised in the Referee/NFHS publication) was in error.

But, as to what will be published; no idea.