Courtesy Runner

[Richvee]

It's black-and-white. A CR can be used for whoever LAST played the position. There are no exceptions listed.

Can you point me towards a rule or case play that uses the term "LAST to play the position"? All I can find are rules and situations where CR's can be used for catchers and pitchers, not for catchers or pitchers who have left the game and have re-entered as pinch runners.

I was in the "illegal" camp on this, but I can accept the interpretation that grants the "ex-catcher" catcher status when he re-enters the game as a pinch runner. However, as far as I can tell, this is an interpretation and it's far from black and white.

[grayhawk]

It's black-and-white. A CR can be used for whoever LAST played the position. There are no exceptions listed.

Can you point me towards a rule or case play that uses the term "LAST to play the position"? All I can find are rules and situations where CR's can be used for catchers and pitchers, not for catchers or pitchers who have left the game and have re-entered as pinch runners.

I was in the "illegal" camp on this, but I can accept the interpretation that grants the "ex-catcher" catcher status when he re-enters the game as a pinch runner. However, as far as I can tell, this is an interpretation and it's far from black and white.

I'm with you Rich. I was thinking that once the catcher left the game that he lost his status as catcher. I just don't see anything in the rules that makes it clear that a re-entering starter that was removed in the same inning while on offense keeps his defensive position. If that's the accepted interpretation, that's fine. But it's certainly not explicit in the rules.

[Replacematt]

It's black-and-white. A CR can be used for whoever LAST played the position. There are no exceptions listed.

Can you point me towards a rule or case play that uses the term "LAST to play the position"? All I can find are rules and situations where CR's can be used for catchers and pitchers, not for catchers or pitchers who have left the game and have re-entered as pinch runners.

I was in the "illegal" camp on this, but I can accept the interpretation that grants the "ex-catcher" catcher status when he re-enters the game as a pinch runner. However, as far as I can tell, this is an interpretation and it's far from black and white.

3.1.1 N addresses this (unless the number has changed; we don't get case books every year.) It states unequivocally that a CR is allowed only for the catcher to last play defense before coming to bat (it would be logical to assume that the principle holds for pitchers, as well.)

[Richvee]

It's black-and-white. A CR can be used for whoever LAST played the position. There are no exceptions listed.

Can you point me towards a rule or case play that uses the term "LAST to play the position"? All I can find are rules and situations where CR's can be used for catchers and pitchers, not for catchers or pitchers who have left the game and have re-entered as pinch runners.

I was in the "illegal" camp on this, but I can accept the interpretation that grants the "ex-catcher" catcher status when he re-enters the game as a pinch runner. However, as far as I can tell, this is an interpretation and it's far from black and white.

3.1.1 N addresses this (unless the number has changed; we don't get case books every year.) It states unequivocally that a CR is allowed only for the catcher to last play defense before coming to bat (it would be logical to assume that the principle holds for pitchers, as well.)

Not really. 3.3.1.n is about a projected substitution. It's about a coach, while his team is at bat, tells U1 that when he goes back on defense, F7 is going to catch, so if F7 gets on base, he wants to use a CR for him. No one is leaving the game and re-entering to pinch run.

However, in the ruling, it says, "the CR would only be allowed to run for the player who was the catcher on defense before coming to bat."

I agree that can be interpreted as "last to play the position", but it's not black and white. This case play and ruling has nothing to do with the real issue here....The question here is, when a catcher or pitcher leaves the game for a pinch hitter and re-enters as a pinch runner, does he retain his defensive position he held prior to being removed from the game?

[LMSANS]

The intent of the rule is to get F2 (F1 alsofor some reason) in the dugout, putting his equipment on before the inning ends. F1 can start his warmups as soon as F1 & F2 get on the field.

The rule says nothing about projected players. It is through interpretation, that this issue is addressed.

Read the book and come back to play again some time.

Pretty sure I know the rule.

Name one aspect of the rule that guarantees that the "replaced" player will be F1 or F2 the next half-inning, outside of the top of the 1st.

Therefore, to make the claim, as some people have, that the re-entered player has no defensive position is incorrect and irrelevant.

You may want to pay attention to what people are actually saying.

Is this the rule you know?

By state association adoption any, all, or any part of the suggested speed-up rules may be used.

COURTESY RUNNERS

1. At any time, the team at bat may use courtesy runners for the pitcher and/or the catcher.

2. The same individual runner may not be used for both positions (pitcher and catcher) during the game.

3. Neither the pitcher nor the catcher will be required to leave the game under such circumstances.

4. Players who have participated in the game in any other capacity are ineligible to serve as courtesy runners.

5. A player may not run as a courtesy runner for the pitcher or the catcher and then be used as a substitute for another player in that half inning. If an injury, illness or ejection occurs and no other runners are available, the courtesy runner may be used as a substitute.

6. The umpire-in-chief shall record courtesy runner participation and also announce it to the scorer.

7. A player who violates the courtesy-runner rule is considered to be an illegal substitute.

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

[LMSANS]

...

The rule says nothing about projected players. It is through interpretation, that this issue is addressed.

[JaxRolo]

This thread needs to be locked. It is obvious that there will be no agreement here and it has come down to name calling and arguments.

That's enough!!!

[Umpire in Chief]

That's enough!!!

I'm not locking the thread at this point , but let's remain civil.

keep the discussion on topic and refrain from personal attacks.

It is threads like this where there are fundemental differences in opinion where people can learn a great deal from , but nothing can be learned from personal attacks.

Thanks,

Warren

[mstaylor]

That's enough!!!

I'm not locking the thread at this point , but let's remain civil.

keep the discussion on topic and refrain from personal attacks.

It is threads like this where there are fundemental differences in opinion where people can learn a great deal from , but nothing can be learned from personal attacks.

Thanks,

Warren

Agreed, disagree but don't attack. This board is known on the internet as the civil place to come to learn the proper way to umpire. This is a good thread and I can see that it is not a black letter clear ruling that a catcher retains his standing until he is physically replaced on the field, but it an accepted interp. What can not be done is say the pinch hitter is going to catch and needs a CR, that is a projected substitute.

[TX-UIC]

Wow really didn't think that this would get so intense... I really disagree with what our State Association has said but... I don't write them I just enforce them so... so if you umpire in Texas it is Legal...

[UmpTTS43]

Legal in Nebraska as well.

[zm1283]

I'm with Matt here. The CR can run for the person that played the position on defense last, which is still the F2 that was pinch-ran for and then re-entered. I would allow this.

[mstaylor]

The CR rule doesn't want projected subs to be CRed for. If a catcher is PH for, the PH is not the new catcher, that is to be determined. If the catcher reenters he retains that position until he physically moves to another when on defense. Essentially, saying he is no longer catcher is a projected sub also.

Change the play slightly, it is a long inning and the team bats around. The first time the F2 is PH for, but the second time he reenters and bats. If he gets on base he can have a CR. The OP is no different except it was all in the same play.

[zm1283]

The CR rule doesn't want projected subs to be CRed for. If a catcher is PH for, the PH is not the new catcher, that is to be determined. If the catcher reenters he retains that position until he physically moves to another when on defense. Essentially, saying he is no longer catcher is a projected sub also.

Change the play slightly, it is a long inning and the team bats around. The first time the F2 is PH for, but the second time he reenters and bats. If he gets on base he can have a CR. The OP is no different except it was all in the same play.

Yes, this is exactly the same thing. He is still the catcher because he played that position on defense the last time his team was in the field. I'm not sure what is so difficult about this for some people.

[grayhawk]

The CR rule doesn't want projected subs to be CRed for. If a catcher is PH for, the PH is not the new catcher, that is to be determined. If the catcher reenters he retains that position until he physically moves to another when on defense. Essentially, saying he is no longer catcher is a projected sub also.

Change the play slightly, it is a long inning and the team bats around. The first time the F2 is PH for, but the second time he reenters and bats. If he gets on base he can have a CR. The OP is no different except it was all in the same play.

Yes, this is exactly the same thing. He is still the catcher because he played that position on defense the last time his team was in the field. I'm not sure what is so difficult about this for some people.

I think the difficulty is that this is a rule interpretation - not a black letter rule. There is no rule or case play that specifically says that a player retains his defensive position when someone pinch-hits or pinch-runs for him and then he re-enters. As I said earlier in this thread, if that is the accepted interpretation, that's fine by me, but it's not exactly spelled out specifically in the rules.