Courtesy Runner

I can't say I know the NFHS rule regarding this, however I don't think I've seen this explanation before.  Unless a courtesy runner enters as a sub, I think he is just a "courtesy" runner, and can be used as a sub at any time, with the person he is substituted for remaining eligible for re-entry in the same lineup spot one time.

That's more or less what my coach at the time and I said after the game when they officially notified me that the game was played under protest.  He stuck with his guns that he's locked in that way.

 

Looking forward to hear from the umps on this one.  Not that I'm looking for ammo to make this guy look bad but I have to make some phone calls in morning and I want my ducks in a row.

 

I agree but this was 4th inning then 7th inning.

Interesting - I've never heard this.  

Courtesy runners are covered in the "suggested speed-up rules," in the NFHS book, a section that is introduced with the statement, "By state association adoption, any, all, or part of the suggested speed-up rules may be used."

 

I don't know what your state has adopted, but the restrictions in the suggested rules are that:

a) the same courtesy runner may not run for both the pitcher and the catcher, and b) a player may not be a courtesy runner and then be used as a substitute for another player in the same half inning.

 

A player who was a courtesy runner in the fourth inning and had no subsequent participation in the game would be eligible to substitute for any player in any capacity in the seventh inning.

 

One more caveat to Swampboy's list - you cannot have participated in the game in any other manner and then be a courtesy runner. Also an exception to use in the same inning is that if there's an injury and there's no other players available, then a player used as a courtesy runner can be used as a legal substitute.

 

It seems the ruling on the field was half right - the player is tied to the catcher insomuch as he can run for the catcher, but not the pitcher. Furthermore the same player is the only player that can run for the catcher/pitcher, unless there's injury, illness, or ejection. However, the ability to use as a "legal" substitute later should have been allowed (unless of course the state association has their own "interpretation" of the rule).  I'm glad most coaches in our area don't want to deal with this - some middle school coaches do, but not high school.

 

I take it the team lost so if the protest is upheld someone gets the joy of finishing that game, again.

Interesting. I knew that a courtesy runner could not run for both the pitcher and catcher. But this idea that he can't be a pinch runner is a new one for me.

 

In fact, I had one time in high school that I was the courtesy runner for the catcher at first base. Ground ball and I was forced out at second base. This was in the 7th inning and the runner now at 1st base was a slow, pudgy kid. So my coach inserted me in to pinch run at 1st base. I literally turned around and went right back to 1st base. Nobody said a word about it...

A player can't CR for both F1 and F2 in the same game. (some mistakenly think it's the same inning and try to have Smith run for F1 in the first and then run for F2 in the second -- that's not legal.)

 

Can't enter on offense in any other capacity in the same inning in which the player has been a CR.

 

Not true.  Smith can CR for the catcher in the first inning, Jones can CR for the catcher in the third inning and  Doe can CR for the catcher in the fifth inning.  All are subject to the CR restrictions.

Follow up questions for umpires.
Jones enters as courtesy runner for pitcher in second inning. In the fourth inning, the catcher gets a hit, his coach calls time for a courtesy runner, and Jones trots out of the dugout.

What does the umpire do?

Does the umpire treat this like a batting out of order situation and keep quiet unless the opposing coach complains?  Or does he take the initiative to prevent Jones from being CR for two players?

How long does the umpire or opposing coach have to correct the illegal substitution?  Does he become legal after one pitch?  Or can the error be corrected any time he is still on the bases?  Is there any remedy if he steals a base on the first pitch?

ah - looks like I took 7a out of context... mea culpa and thanks for pointing it out...

 

7.a. "Should an injury, illness, or ejection occur to the courtesy runner, another courtesy runner for the pitcher or catcher may run."

 

 

w/r/t: Swampboy's followup...

 

Well 3-1-1 tells you the consequences...

 

If the umpire realizes it before allowing the CR - which he should because he's supposed to keep track on his handy, dandy, lineup card - then just disallow the CR.  That'd be called preventative umpiring. If the player gets into the game and then it's brought to the attention of the umpire by the opposing coach or (unlikely, but possible) the coach on offense, apply the consequences by rule.  It'll be the last time it happens I would think!

 

Penalty is being called out and restricted to the bench/dugout for the duration of the game of the player.... If a restricted player tries to enter the game - he's out and ejected.   

 

The aspect of handling things after discovery of an illegal player once a pitch is made to either team is at best confusing in reading the rule. Unlike batting out of order an illegal sub doesn't become magically legal after a pitch. The only thing the next pitch does is create/cause mayhem and make life more difficult for the umpire :-). Hence why you do preventative umpiring. Assume CR goes to 1B, ball is put back in play, pitcher attempts pickoff and it's a wild throw. CR ends up at third and runner on third scores and *then* the illegal sub is recognized before the next pitch.  Call the CR out, restrict him to the dugout, and replace the runner that scored on 3rd. Hopefully you can do all this before the infielders leave the diamond on the last out of the game especially if he's the 3rd out of a tie game...

Got it.  Thanks, JF.

I hadn't noticed the line in the speed up rules saying a player who violates the CR rules is considered an illegal substitute.  

Well things are getting more and more interesting.  I talked to the regional supervisor of officials for our area and he talked to the ump from last night.  The ump last night told the supervisor that our HC said he wanted player A to courtesy run for our first baseman who was on second.  So he's saying this is why he wouldn't let him enter the game.  All of my coaches are saying that the HC said he wanted player A to pinch run for the guy on second.  

 

Question for the umps - do you try to do preventative umpiring and ask the HC to say again what he was wanting to do if you thought he said courtesy run instead of pinch run?  If the HC does brain fart and say courtesy instead of pinch do you tell him he can't do that but can pinch run him?

 

Brain farts happen to everyone but from what I'm hearing (as the mostly neutral party but still going to support my coaches) all of this would have been avoided if the ump would have asked if meant courtesy or pinch / substitute.  

Not that he'll help the cause, but does the opposing coach recall hearing courtesy vs pinch?  Was this one of those instances where coach walked down to the PU and attempted to make the substitution "quietly" (like he should) or was he in the 3B box going "Blue time"... "Player A get your helmet on"... "Blue, I'm going to courtesy/pinch run"...  Loud enough for more than just two people to hear it?

 

I think if you're aware of the rule - you can say coach you cannot courtesy run for anyone other than pitcher and catcher.  If coach then asks can I pinch run and all the other aspects are met, then the answer would have to be yes.  Would I prompt the coach if he meant pinch run?  I dunno.  I'm guessing the conversation would go much quicker and I wouldn't have the time for that. As soon as I said no, I'm sure the next words out of my mouth after the coach asks "Why not?" would be an attempt to restate the rule.  If I say, did you mean pinch run coach?  I can only imagine the other coach won't be very happy if was close enough to hear it... Only because of the wording in the OP do I wonder about the revisionist history in the most recent post.  It comes down to who do you believe - the two umps or the coach(es)?

 

When a protest happens - the process I've been told to follow is write down in the home book the current game situation, the cause of the protest, and have all parties sign it.  If someone wrote in the home book - I wanted to pinch run for runner at second, but was disallowed because umpire says I cannot pinch run using a player that was previously used as a courtesy runner.  Then the spoken word vs. heard word problem goes away.

JohnF - not real sure if the other coach heard what was said or not.  I was about 400 feet away at the gate to the entrance to the field.  I know my coach went down the line to tell him and then after hearing no to the change went to talk to him.  I really don't want to involve the other team because, while it would be nice for them to actually say what they heard (good or bad), there's too big of a chance they will say whatever they want to help them.  Which is not come back to finish the game.  If our protest is upheld then they will have to drive an hour to come back to our field for what could be one out.  But this is a match up between the number one team in the conference (them) and number three team (us).  Playoff appearance is also on the line so this is really important for them to get this right.

 

I get what you're saying about hot "helping" or "guiding" a coach into saying the right thing because other coach may not like it.  But to be honest I wouldn't say a word and I would even speak up to help the other team if it meant not having to come back for one out.  At the end of the day no matter who the other team puts in to run the other team has to get one more out.  To me this is an issue toward the integrity of the game.  Regardless of what our coach said - pinch vs courtesy - the overall purpose of what we were doing was a legal substitution.  This is where logical minds need to step up and say "ok what exactly are you trying to do?" and then solve it.  Not create controversy by getting caught up in a fixable minute detail.  

 

Another fact is that when our coach asked the plate ump to talk to his partner to get everyone on the same page he flat out refused to meet with him.  He said he wasn't wrong and will not go to him.  Just talked to the state supervisor of officials and he feels that a misinterpretation of the rules did take place.  But the state of NC doesn't have a position on protests so it will have to be decided by our conference.  So that's my next step.

 

Thanks for the replies guys

Absolutely I use preventive umpiring on this (and the situation where he tries to make an illegal CR move - for example having the same runner for both F1 and F2).

 

BTW, I'm not sure you've posted the entire situation, but even if the umpire was wrong here, the error still needs to affect the game.  so unless you can show that the (presumably speedy) CR would have scored and the (presumably slower) F3 didn't, the protest would likely still be denied.

 

And if it was protested at the time, the umpires are supposed to get together (well, at least in OBR -- here, each state / conference has its own protest rules, so that might not be strictly true).