Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
Funny - I read the same statement and get opposite meaning. There is a difference between a touch and a catch, obviously. You can have a touch, without a catch. But you cannot have a catch without a touch. Rules regarding when a baserunner is released from a bag refer to first touch... but this doesn't mean that a ball caught without a bobble was never touched. A catch INCLUDES a touch. It BEGINS with a touch.
The statement you've quoted includes the words "(not caught)" in order to tell us that what matters regarding foul/fair is when the ball is TOUCHED, not when it is CAUGHT. It does NOT mean that the ball is not foul if it was caught. It was foul when it was first touched. If the rule meant to say what you think it says, it would not say "(not caught)", it would say "(uncaught)". The only reason for the "(not caught)" part is so the rules are clear in a case where a player first TOUCHES the ball in foul (or fair) ground, but completes the catch in fair (or foul) ground - what matters regarding fair/foul is where it was when TOUCHED, not CAUGHT.
|
You make a highly technical, and upon further review, probably a CORRECT analysis.
This is probably why, when an umpire goes out on a fly ball that is going to be very close to the line, once caught, the umpire FIRST signals whether the ball was on the FAIR or FOUL side of the line and THEN signals "a catch." This is done to get the umpire locked into making a determination of the fair/foul status of the ball because, if it's ultimately NOT CAUGHT, that determination will be critical. If he focuses too intently on the catch/no-catch status of the ball (which is usually an easier call than the fair/foul call), he will find himself in a mess should the ball NOT be caught.
In other words, if the ball is ultimately caught, whether it was on the fair or foul side of the line is rendered moot. But if the ball is dropped, that becomes the most critical element of the call.
Interesting.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN