fair/foul - then catch/no-catch

[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.