Speed-up Rule

Adoption of any or all of the NFHS's suggested speed up rules is up to each state association, so it would depend on whether your state has adopted them and whether its rule is more specific than the suggested rule, which doesn't discuss this issue.  

 

In my state, the rule is used, but the state high school association web site doesn't have any information on its web site.  

 

Pitcher is defined in rule 2 as the player designated in the lineup as being responsible for delivering the ball to the batter.  Catcher is also defined but not in a way that sheds light on this question.  

 

Since the a) the proposed speed up rule doesn't specify that the pitcher or catcher must have previously pitched or caught, b) the only potentially relevant definition refers to designation within the line up, and c) the presumed purpose of the courtesy runner is to have next inning's pitcher and catcher ready to begin warmups properly, I wouldn't have any problem with an announced legal substitute for the catcher being lifted for a courtesy runner before he has actually caught.

 

I would ask the people telling you otherwise to cite their authority.  

Thanks for your answer.  I just moved and joined a new county high school association.  They had a quiz on their website with one of the questions being: the catcher is subbed for during his turn at bat and the sub singles.  Can a courtesy runner be used for the sub on first base?  Their answer was NO.  When I questioned it with the two trainers of the association they both insisted that a CR could not be used because the catcher had not yet caught.  So of course I brought up the fact that the visiting catcher might not catch before batting either, and he could have a CR.  Once I get a case book and do not find it in there I will bring up the question again.

I think the issue here is that even though in this situation the catcher has yet to catch, he is still designated in the line up as the catcher. With the substitution the player is technically designated as a pitch hitter until they take a position on defense. It is solely an offensive substitution until they take a defensive position.

Think about how you report the substitution to the umpire. It normally goes "22 batting for 5".

3.1.1N covers this. "[A] courtesy runner would only be allowed to run for the player who was the catcher on defense before coming to bat."

 

And yes, this is the head-scratcher since it is contrary to the intent of the rule.

Matt, 

I don't think 3.1.1N is on point because it involves a rearrangement of defensive positions of players already in the lineup, not a substitution.  

 

In Tom's situation, the coach made a substitution and replaced the catcher with a new player.

The thing is that defensive substitutions cannot be made in the offensive half of the inning (that's why the case play states that even a simple defensive switch is an illegal projected substitute.) Until that batter actually takes the field as F2, he is merely a pinch-hitter. There is a statement from FED somewhere that I am trying to find where they sum it up as "CRs can only be used for the last player to play F1 or F2 with the exception of the top of the first."

Thanks, Matt. If you can find it, please pass it along.

I'd like to be prepared if this ever happens.

In my limited umping experience the only CR issue I'm aware of was a runner CR-ing for both positions in the same JV game. Nobody caught it. Nobody objected. I realized it only after the game when I went over my notes.

And I agree with BiggerPapi--it sometimes does seem like causes as many delays as it prevents.

Yes, Matt.  That would be great if you could come up that.  Obviously what FED thinks the rule should be is what it should be.  They wrote the rules.

Still looking. 2005 Interpretation 2 would imply that the CR has to be for the last physical F1 or F2, but it doesn't address it directly (the raison d'etre for this interpretation in the first place would be because a CR can't run for a sub.) I would also say that the full ruling on 3.1.1N would be binding on all substitutions, because it appears to address the generality of substituting, not the specific concept of a defensive switch. 

 

Every non-authoritative source I can find back to 2005 states that the OP is illegal.

I agree with Matt that 2005 interp 2 and case 3-1-1n are sufficient.  If you want the CR, put the catcher back in the game.  N

Originally Posted by Swampboy:

Adoption of any or all of the NFHS's suggested speed up rules is up to each state association, so it would depend on whether your state has adopted them and whether its rule is more specific than the suggested rule, which doesn't discuss this issue….

 

Not to get off-track here, but before someone in Ca gets the wrong idea, each of the 10 sections is treated like a state in that they get to make their own determinations about the speed-up rules. But it sure seems as though whether the speed-up rules are used or not may well be a lot more variable than whether the state/section assn decides they are or aren’t applicable.

 

Here’s an excerpt from one of the sections rules.

2.7 The speed-up rule may be used if requested by both coaches prior to the game. If requested, they may agree to use all the speed-up rules or agree to use any part of the speed-up rules. (See National Federation Rule Book for details of rule.)

 

After doing a little research, I found out that leagues in some sections also have the ability to use or not the speed-up rules too, and that’s dependent on the section assn.. In short, as uncomplicated as a question about this stuff should be, obviously a lot depends on more than just the NFHS rulebook.