Mandatory Courtesy Runner

[RBIbaseball]

Low threat question here that I had a slight bit of curiosity about on what others think

NFHS ruleset with a modification that with 2 outs courtesy runners are mandatory

Championship of a 50 team tourney, 4 man crew

Bot 8th (extras), tie game, two outs

 

Catcher hits a double. U2 knows its the catcher and takes it upon himself to call time and signal to dugout for a courtesy runner (I personally would have waited for a complaint from the other team). Conversation ensues because catcher is very fast, and the last batted out is very slow. Coach tells umpire that he isn't going to catch anymore, and they will switch catchers next inning. Ultimately, U2 forces coach to use courtesy runner per the rule. Once the opposing coach saw what was going on, he was verbally lobbying for the slow runner to be forced to run as well, naturally.

Nothing eventful, 3rd out made. Same team ends up winning in the 9th.


I just thought it was interesting. Is there an argument to be made that the coach should be able to announce a new catcher to circumvent that requirement? What if it was totally legit (ie not a retroactive response, but another kid in the dugout was already in full gear ready to go)... does that change anything?

In the end the purpose is to keep the game moving, so why would we force a sub if he they legit were changing catchers (or if they pinky swore they would ). I understand we have a "catcher of record" and a rule as written, but was just curious if y'all would have also enforced the runner change.

I'd argue that the fastest way to speed up the game is to keep the fast catcher in and hopes he scores 😆
 

[Velho]

54 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

NFHS ruleset with a modification that with 2 outs courtesy runners are mandatory

Absent seeing the actual language, mandatory is mandatory. If fully thought out, there would be a provision for last inning or locking in that said runner is not catching to start next inning.*

Is that a "booger to pick"? Maybe. Better path to let the other team complain? Likely. But you can't fault U2 enforcing the rule, "technically correct" and all that.

55 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

I'd argue that the fastest way to speed up the game is to keep the fast catcher in and hopes he scores 😆

Now that is second order thinking.

 

* In LL CR is allowed with 2 outs for F1 and F2 of record to avoid coaches from playing games.

[RBIbaseball]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Absent seeing the actual language, mandatory is mandatory.

Def not very thought out. Here is the snip from the document:

[Velho]

7 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

Def not very thought out. Here is the snip from the document:

Sigh. Yeah, be careful what you ask for.

 

[RBIbaseball]

4 minutes ago, Velho said:

Sigh. Yeah, be careful what you ask for.

 

Ya Lol. Mid tier travel tournament - maybe slightly better than most. On one hand they write their rules amendments with little thought. On the other hand they pony up for 3 man crews for semis and 4 man for championship at full rate for each umpire. I'm confused on how much they care.
 

[Richvee]

It's a rule that will get the catcher ready quicker 99% of the time. Your's was a one-off situation. As for changing the catcher next inning, if you're following FED rules, it's the catcher/pitcher of record. It's usually the other way around though. F3 doubles, he's slow as can be. Coach wants a courtesy runner because he's going to catch/pitch next inning....Nope. 

[RBIbaseball]

4 hours ago, Richvee said:

 As for changing the catcher next inning, if you're following FED rules, it's the catcher/pitcher of record.

Yep. This is pretty much the answer... open and shut case.

 

It being a flippantly wrote addition in the tourney doc empowered me to think I had to agency to apply a "spirit of the rule" interpretation. I would have let it go personally. But U2 was definitely right to enforce it.

[The Man in Blue]

I was going to add a point, but it is interesting that the NFHS book does not address this.

@Richvee, you said "of record." If I make a substitution, then the new player is the player of record.

I have never encountered an organization that didn't define the P/C eligible for a CR as "the last player to play the position" to avoid these 

 

[Richvee]

15 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

If I make a substitution, then the new player is the player of record.

He’s not the catcher until he’s been behind the dish catching live pitches. How’s that? 

[jimurrayalterego]

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

He’s not the catcher until he’s been behind the dish catching live pitches. How’s that? 

Can't copy and paste but Case Book ruling CR 17 does not allow a CR for a player who has not been the catcher of record in the last half inning. I think there is also a similar ruling for the pitcher. But I don't understand FED's rationale for not allowing a CR for a P/DH. Nevermind, they don't care if I understand that.

[The Man in Blue]

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

He’s not the catcher until he’s been behind the dish catching live pitches. How’s that? 

Just what it says.  The exception is the top of the 1st inning.  The P/C is the person listed on the line up card.

Here is that part of NFHS Softball's rule:

[BrainFreeze]

On 7/16/2025 at 11:05 AM, RBIbaseball said:

I just thought it was interesting. Is there an argument to be made that the coach should be able to announce a new catcher to circumvent that requirement? What if it was totally legit (ie not a retroactive response, but another kid in the dugout was already in full gear ready to go)... does that change anything?

Off the top of my head, there is an NFHS rule that does not allow for "expected" substitutions.  That is to say, manager cannot call for a courtesy runner saying, this player is "going" to pitch / catch next inning.  That rule would apply here as well, manager cannot say catcher is "going" to come out as catcher so the mandatory rule does not apply.

 

Edit:  heh that's what I get for not reading the rest of the thread before replying.  Nearly everyone else in the thread had the same understanding of the rule as me.

Edited July 18, 2025 by BrainFreeze
Everyone else had same answer except i didn't read the thread.

[jimurrayalterego]

26 minutes ago, BrainFreeze said:

Off the top of my head, there is an NFHS rule that does not allow for "expected" substitutions.  That is to say, manager cannot call for a courtesy runner saying, this player is "going" to pitch / catch next inning.  That rule would apply here as well, manager cannot say catcher is "going" to come out as catcher so the mandatory rule does not apply.

 

Edit:  heh that's what I get for not reading the rest of the thread before replying.  Nearly everyone else in the thread had the same understanding of the rule as me.

There is some confusion over "Projected substitutions are not allowed". My opinion is that you cannot project a defensive sub as a pitcher or catcher. There is only one caseplay regarding projected subs and it involves the catcher. If a coach wanted to tie himself down on offense he could give you all the batting subs at once. Some here say you have to tell him to give you them when their at bat comes up. I disagree with that interp of "projected". They would all be offensive subs and have been reported when the team is on offense. OBR and NCAA have no restriction on projected subs.