fair/foul - then catch/no-catch

[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.