Courtesy Runner in ITB

[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.