fair/foul - then catch/no-catch

[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!

[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.

[Steven Tyler]

Do some want to signal no catch on a dropped foul fly ball?

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Do some want to signal no catch on a dropped foul fly ball?

I do, if it's obviously foul and it's a close catch/no catch. Usually happens when F2 goes to the screen or dives toward a fence.