Courtesy Runner Rule

[WestMichiganBlue]

FED 8.9.1 or ASA 8.10.A. "The same courtesy runner may not run for both the pitcher and the catcher in the same half inning or any time during the game."

Does not any time during the game include the same half inning? Any idea why this is written this way?

I had to call this tonight on a coach that is one of the top coaches in this area and, I assumed, should have known better. She used the same courtesy runner three times, the first two for the pitcher, then in a later inning for the catcher. When I told her she couldn't do that, she gave me one of those "nobody ever called that on me before" looks, but conceded and sent her runner back to the bench and returned the catcher to the base.

We went on with the game. Did I make the right call?

WMB

[Steve M]

I am hoping that Fed changes the wording on this. I sent an email requesting that Fed remove "in the same half inning". My state interpreter has endorsed & forwarded the request to Mary Struckhoff at the Fed. One of the umps in my high school chapter had a very similar situation about 2 weeks ago.

Steve M

[CecilOne]

First of all, the call was correct. The same CR can not be used for both positions, even if it is the same player whos has changed positions.

Second, I think someone dug up that the original draft of the rule said "in the same half inning " and then "or any time during the game" was added with the usual lack of attention to proofreading, causing confusion and making it harder for umpires. The other theory was they were trying to emphasize the "not at all" aspect and so they wrote it redundantly.

[WestMichiganBlue]

"Did I make the right call?"

OK, let me add a little detail. That CR would have been an illegal substitute. Once I made the ball "live" the illegal player could have been "discovered" by the umpire or either team. Penalty: called out and ejected.

The CR was reported to me (PU) by the coach; I wrote it down, then said "uh oh, you can't do that, Coach." So - during a deadball situation, I prevented the coach from making an illegal substitution.

Now - Did I make the right call?

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichiganBlue
"Did I make the right call?"

OK, let me add a little detail. That CR would have been an illegal substitute. Once I made the ball "live" the illegal player could have been "discovered" by the umpire or either team. Penalty: called out and ejected.

The CR was reported to me (PU) by the coach; I wrote it down, then said "uh oh, you can't do that, Coach." So - during a deadball situation, I prevented the coach from making an illegal substitution.

Now - Did I make the right call?

WMB

Absotively, or posilutely, you get the point

[Duke]

I would have done the same. A little preventative umpiring. If I have a coach that tries to put in a illegal sub I will tell them they can't do it and why. Also there are times when you know the coach is putting in a sub like a pinch runner or hitter and not say anything to you about it. I've seen times when the coach calls time to put in a new pitcher off the bench and not say anything. I will ask the coach something to this affect "What do you have coach or what number is the sub coach".

[Rick Vietti]

I agree good preventitive officiating is always the best course of action rather than having illegal substitutes.

Actually my theory is that if we are recording substitutes properly on the lineup cards and keeping track of re-entries, then an illegal substitute should NEVER happen. The Fed book has several pages on the penalties etc... but in many years of doing High School Fastpitch, I have never seen an illegal substitute try to get into the game.

I use the technique with the coach that when a player has used up all of their re-entries, then I inform the coach that "This is Player Smiths last re-entry!"

[jim.t]

In this part of ms. and with all the umpires I have worked with, we tell the coaches that the same CR can run for the pitcher and catcher as long its not the same half inning. This is only in our local area, So lets hope fed changes the wording on this one.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

So the redundancy in the rule statement has led to confusion - not within the same half inning or within any of the other half innings throughout the game. I would think that local areas should not make rules that countermand the FED rules. They can add to the rules but to negate some of them doesn't seem right.

Sounds like the rules statement has led to an improper interpretation - as in italics above.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I don't understand how this could add to confusion. Yes, it seems redundant, but think of some of the arguments you have had with coaches over the years. It may be there to make sure they understand that the remainder of the game starts immediately and not at the end of that half inning.

For an umpire, this should be simple.

[WestMichiganBlue]

"Does not any time during the game include the same half inning? Any idea why this is written this way?"
++++++++++++++++++++++
"For an umpire, this should be simple."

I agree Mike. It doesn't change the application of the rule one iota. I was trying to find out if anyone else was reading something into that sentence that I could not see. Concensus seems to be that it is redundant and/or poorly written.

WBM

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
...led to confusion - not within the same half inning or within any of the other half innings throughout the game.

The confusion is just as I stated above.

Obviously, all rules are applicable throughout the entire game. It is the "half-inning" vs. "anytime during the game" stuff that creates the confusion.

If the rule was like I have printed above in italics (and apparently as some have interpretted the rule), the same courtesy runner could run for the catcher in the 1st inning and then run again for the pitcher in the 3rd inning. This would be allowed because they are different half innings.

If the rule is interpretted without the "half-inning" stuff and that the same CR cannot run for both the catcher and the pitcher at anytime during the game, we get a different interpretation/applicability. Two separate courtesy runners are required for the two separate players.

The rulebook has two requirements and they don't agree.

1) The same courtesy runner may not run for both the pitcher and the catcher in the same half inning.

--and--

2) The same courtesy runner may not run for both the pitcher and the catcher any time during the game."

These statements are not the same and they really don't reinforce each other. So they truly are not redundant statements either. This is confusing. Which half of the rule statement do I enforce? We have chosen to enforce the second statement.

But how is a coach or umpire reading the rulebook in isolation to know? FED Casebook 8.9.1C spells it out and basically says the "half-inning" stuff is not pertinent and for my purposes, should not be in the rule. To be concise and direct, the rule should read like #2 above.

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
... snip ... The rulebook has two requirements and they don't agree.
... snip ... These statements are not the same and they really don't reinforce each other.

I don't see how these are contradictory. If something can't happen any time during the game, then it can't happen in the same half inning or in the same whole inning or in the same at bat or whenever. All we really need is "The same courtesy runner may not run for both the pitcher and the catcher. (period) ", but redundant rules are better than unanswered questions.
What needs to be more clearly stated is that the CR is running for a position and not a player. If #33 was a CR for the #12 as the pitcher and #12 moves from pitcher to catcher, #33 can not be a CR for #12 as a catcher.