fair/foul - then catch/no-catch

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Uh Manny - he can go on first touch - waiting for the actual catch isn't part of the decision.

Uh, coach ... which direction should they run on first touch if they don't yet know if it was caught?

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

And then everyone really needs to know and know now if it's fair or foul because it governs ensuing action.

I think the most important thing that governs ensuing action is whether it is caught or not.


If the ball is caught - it makes no difference whether it was caught in fair or foul territory. Runners can tag up without any concern about the fair/foul status of the ball. If the ball was on the fair side and was a marginal "catch" requiring an umpire ruling - the runner will primarily want to know if it was caught or not. Because, if it was on the foul side and ruled a no-catch, it really doesn't matter.

If the ball was not caught, once the runners see the no-catch ruling they can assume that it was fair and immediately respond appropriately - if it subsequently turns out to be foul - no harm.

I don't know, it just seems backwards to me.

I'm thinking the reason they encourage umpires to call it in this manner is so they focus on the fair/foul status of the ball; because, if they focus too much on whether it's a catch or not, they will fail to notice where the ball was first touched. That's great for the umpire - doesn't work so well for the runners.

[kylejt]

On a caught ball, near the line, fair/foul is the least important of the two mechanics. It serves only to inform the scorekeeper on what to put in the book. It's only a courtesy call, only for them.

Signal the catch, and if you have the time, then fair/foul.

I'm fully aware of what's taught, and it makes zero sense, if you think about it for more than three seconds.

[jicecone]

David, I really think your giving way too much credit to the officials signal being the guide to the runner for whether or not a catch is made. I doubt very much if 10% of the time the runners are judging whether to tag up or not on a signal by the official. I will reserve that 10% for traps.

For the most part, at second, you are watching the fielder and at third/first your listening to the coach.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by jicecone

David, I really think your giving way too much credit to the officials signal being the guide to the runner for whether or not a catch is made. I doubt very much if 10% of the time the runners are judging whether to tag up or not on a signal by the official. I will reserve that 10% for traps.

For the most part, at second, you are watching the fielder and at third/first your listening to the coach.

At high levels of play and on well-coached teams, runners are always taught to read the ball and not rely on the coach for baserunning decisions. On a fly ball, waiting for the coach to say "Go!" is Little League stuff.

About the only time runners rely on the coach is when their back is to the ball and something unexpected happens. (i.e. runner advancing to 3rd and the outfielder bobbles the ball or the relay is mishandled.) For instance, you'll almost never see a 1st base coach tell a batter to advance to 2nd on a hit because the batter is expected to see the play and make his own decision.

I disagree. I think the umpire's signal on a shoestring catch that could've gone either way is critical to the runner. Primarily, the runner will watch the play and then, if there's any doubt (and there will be doubt on a shoestring catch), his attention will turn immediately to the umpire for a catch/no-catch ruling. The last thing the runner will care about in that situation is whether the ball was fair or foul. Which, to me, is why it seems so odd that it is taught to give the fair/foul call before the catch/no-catch call.

I admit, I'm thinking about this more as a former (Div I) player of the game than I am as an umpire. It's really not that big of a deal. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by kylejt

On a caught ball, near the line, fair/foul is the least important of the two mechanics. It serves only to inform the scorekeeper on what to put in the book. It's only a courtesy call, only for them.

Signal the catch, and if you have the time, then fair/foul.

I'm fully aware of what's taught, and it makes zero sense, if you think about it for more than three seconds.

Really?

PLAY: Ball hit down the line. F9 touches it in fair ground (let's say right over the foul line), takes four or five more steps clearly into foul ground in an attempt to stop, loses his footing and falls (or crashes into the wall/fence), and the ball comes out.

NOW try selling that this was a fair ball.

The reason we signal fair/foul first is because that's what's ALWAYS decided first. It's not caught until all the elements of a catch are present, but it's fair/foul immediately.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Rich

PLAY: Ball hit down the line. F9 touches it in fair ground (let's say right over the foul line), takes four or five more steps clearly into foul ground in an attempt to stop, loses his footing and falls (or crashes into the wall/fence), and the ball comes out.

NOW try selling that this was a fair ball.

The reason we signal fair/foul first is because that's what's ALWAYS decided first. It's not caught until all the elements of a catch are present, but it's fair/foul immediately.

Your last sentence makes sense from an umpire's perspective, and is probably the explanation as to why the mechanic is taught that way.

But even with the play you describe the runner will be far more concerned if the catch was made or not. It's just that in your example play - there is so much intervening time between the determination of fair/foul and catch/no-catch, it only makes sense to call it in that order.

Imagine you are the runner at 3rd on this play. As soon as you see the fair signal, are you going to dash home? No! Because you have to wait until the catch/no-catch signal is made. I'm not saying fair or foul isn't important. It is! But for marginal catches, the runners are primarily going to be concerned with the catch/no-catch call. You can take off running on a foul ball - and the worst that will happen is that they call you back; so the runners do not have to be concerned with whether a ball is fair or foul.

Yet, I think your explanation makes perfect sense and I think it does explain why the mechanic is why it is. Thanks!

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Manny A

The only time I ever see what you describe (fair/foul signal, then catch signal) is on the routine catch. And I can only assume the signal is given to inform the scorer whether to write "F9" or "FF9" in the book.

They use F9 or f9.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

...But even with the play you describe the runner will be far more concerned if the catch was made or not...Imagine you are the runner at 3rd on this play. As soon as you see the fair signal, are you going to dash home? No! Because you have to wait until the catch/no-catch signal is made. ...

No, as the runner you don't. By rule runners have complied with the retouch rule by being on the bag when the ball is touched not when it is caught.

It is pretty simple the batted ball is fair or foul first and then it is either a catch or a no catch. Umpire in order of priorities: ball/strike, fair/foul, catch/no catch, safe/out...

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

No, as the runner you don't. By rule runners have complied with the retouch rule by being on the bag when the ball is touched not when it is caught.

But the runner will not be on the bag when the line drive is hit. He'll freeze some distance off the bag. What he'll want to know is if it was caught. If it was - he'll know that he has to get back or get doubled-up. If it wasn't, he'll have to decide whether it's worth continuing to advance toward home.

This is not an umpire issue. I'm simply disputing those in this thread who have claimed that the most important piece of information to the runner is the fair/foul call.

It is pretty simple the batted ball is fair or foul first and then it is either a catch or a no catch. Umpire in order of priorities: ball/strike, fair/foul, catch/no catch, safe/out...

There really is no hurry to call a ball fair or foul when a catch is being made. Anything that is marginal, everybody is going to assume is fair until told otherwise. That will be the case for both the offense and defense. That's the way the game is played. By default, all balls are fair until ruled otherwise.

I could see an umpire indicating "no catch" and then, immediately following it with a fair or foul signal. So? Why would that be so bad? Even if, in the umpire's mind, the moment the fielder touched the ball it was in fair territory - he can wait until the catch/no-catch determination is made before indicating that the ball was fair and no harm would be done to either side.

If it's not caught in foul territory - who cares what order he gives them in? It's not going to matter one way or the other.

If its caught in foul territory - it's irrelevant that it was in foul territory. It's neither fair nor foul - it's just LIVE.

I guess it's really not that big of deal after all.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

But the runner will not be on the bag when the line drive is hit. He'll freeze some distance off the bag. What he'll want to know is if it was caught. If it was - he'll know that he has to get back or get doubled-up. If it wasn't, he'll have to decide whether it's worth continuing to advance toward home.

This is not an umpire issue. I'm simply disputing those in this thread who have claimed that the most important piece of information to the runner is the fair/foul call.



There really is no hurry to call a ball fair or foul when a catch is being made. Anything that is marginal, everybody is going to assume is fair until told otherwise. That will be the case for both the offense and defense. That's the way the game is played. By default, all balls are fair until ruled otherwise.

I could see an umpire indicating "no catch" and then, immediately following it with a fair or foul signal. So? Why would that be so bad? Even if, in the umpire's mind, the moment the fielder touched the ball it was in fair territory - he can wait until the catch/no-catch determination is made before indicating that the ball was fair and no harm would be done to either side.

If it's not caught in foul territory - who cares what order he gives them in? It's not going to matter one way or the other.

If its caught in foul territory - it's irrelevant that it was in foul territory. It's neither fair nor foul - it's just LIVE.

I guess it's really not that big of deal after all.

This has nothing to do with being in a hurry. Baseball plays happen in a certain order and they should be umpired in that order.

The first thing that can happen with runners on base is a balk if the pitcher balks and the B/R gets a base hit the balk is ignored (save NFHS where the ball is dead) does this mean it really doesn't matter when the balk is called?

The second thing that can happen is ball/strike, so rule on that next.

In sequence, the next thing is fair/foul, so rule on that next.

Then catch/no catch, so...

Then safe/out, so...

etc...

Every play should be ruled on in this manner. Of course the sequence can be stopped at some point, but it should be ruled on in order each time until the sequence ends.

That's what this is about. The play happens in order, rule on it in order. Fair/foul has a higher priority than catch/no catch, so rule on fair foul first.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Your last sentence makes sense from an umpire's perspective, and is probably the explanation as to why the mechanic is taught that way.

But even with the play you describe the runner will be far more concerned if the catch was made or not. It's just that in your example play - there is so much intervening time between the determination of fair/foul and catch/no-catch, it only makes sense to call it in that order.

Imagine you are the runner at 3rd on this play. As soon as you see the fair signal, are you going to dash home? No! Because you have to wait until the catch/no-catch signal is made. I'm not saying fair or foul isn't important. It is! But for marginal catches, the runners are primarily going to be concerned with the catch/no-catch call. You can take off running on a foul ball - and the worst that will happen is that they call you back; so the runners do not have to be concerned with whether a ball is fair or foul.

Yet, I think your explanation makes perfect sense and I think it does explain why the mechanic is why it is. Thanks!

If I'm R3 and there's a ball hit in the air to the outfield, I'm going back to tag.

If it falls, I walk home. If it's caught as a trouble ball, I walk home.

As an umpire: If it falls, I'm signaling safe as soon as it's practical. I'm signaling fair/foul on first touch and it's rare that unless the ball hits the ground first that I could signal either one of those signals simultaneously. Only on a short hop could that be an issue. If it's not a fair/foul issue right on the line, I'm probably coming up with a safe signal right away.

[EsqUmp]

It is important to signal fair/foul because of the potential for the defender to bobble the ball and drop it. It is possible that the defender initially touched the ball fair and then dropped it over foul territory. By sticking your arm out and pointing, the umpire will know whether the ball is fair or foul in case it falls. That is much better than a defender diving for the ball, bobbling it and dropping it only for the umpire to stand there wondering, "Hmm, was that fair or foul?" Your brain may not remember, but if your arm is sticking out, you'll have your answer.

In MLB, if the catch becomes obvious, they do not signal "catch" after the point.

A good case in point is when the Yankees were playing the Red Sox and Jeter initially touched a ball in fair territory, then ran into the stands. Fielden Colbreth pointed fair, then ran over toward the stands. If the ball had fallen, it would have been fair.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Rich

If I'm R3 and there's a ball hit in the air to the outfield, I'm going back to tag.

If it falls, I walk home. If it's caught as a trouble ball, I walk home.

What if it's a looper behind 1st base, in short right field? The right fielder is running in and makes the catch. You're not going tag up on that. Too shallow. You'll get thrown out by a mile.

On a hit like that, tagging up would be a mistake. Because if you go back to the bag and wait to see what happens - if it's not caught, you will probably not be able to score because you have to run 90 feet. The ball may very well get picked up in plenty of time to throw you out.

You're going want to get quite a distance off 3rd so, if it drops, you can get home before the ball can be picked up. If it's caught, you can get back to 3rd safely. You usually don't tag up on shallow hits into the outfield. You get off the bag so that if it drops, you can score.

What you've described would be correct on a ball hit deep down the right field line.

But now we're talking more about how the game is played than how the game is umpired.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

What if it's a looper behind 1st base, in short right field? The right fielder is running in and makes the catch. You're not going tag up on that. Too shallow. You'll get thrown out by a mile.

On a hit like that, tagging up would be a mistake. Because if you go back to the bag and wait to see what happens - if it's not caught, you will probably not be able to score because you have to run 90 feet. The ball may very well get picked up in plenty of time to throw you out.

You're going want to get quite a distance off 3rd so, if it drops, you can get home before the ball can be picked up. If it's caught, you can get back to 3rd safely. You usually don't tag up on shallow hits into the outfield. You get off the bag so that if it drops, you can score.

What you've described would be correct on a ball hit deep down the right field line.

But now we're talking more about how the game is played than how the game is umpired.

Regardless of which mechanic you'd like to see first, if it's a catch I'm going to make sure all elements of a catch are present (including voluntary release) before signaling an out. That's not going to happen quickly on a play like this regardless -- I'll have plenty of time to signal fair first before calling the runner out. If the ball hits the ground, I'm pointing fair quickly and then selling the "no catch" part of the sequence.

So I'm not sure how we're putting anyone at a great disservice here.