fair/foul - then catch/no-catch

[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.