Earlier in my career, I occasionally found myself out over a barrel when I wasn't sure what had happened. I'll give a specific example.

​

I've called games in minor-league parks where a combination of factors --- such as white advertising signs and poor lighting --- made it difficult to tell whether or not an outfielder had made a catch.

​

"Johnson goes back to the track, to the wall, it isssssssssss..."

​

I would extend "is" until I'd figured out what had happened. It didn't sound very good.

​

A similar thing happened when calling a football game, and I wasn't certain whether a catch had been made in the end zone. It went something like this:

​

"Downfield to Lawrence on a fade, back of the end zone, heeeeeeeeee..."

​

I wasn't sure if he was in bounds or not, and the ball had been bobbled. The call didn't come immediately while the field judge made his decision, and so I extended "he" while I awaited the call.

​

I have since trained myself to simply describe what I see until I learn what happened.

​

In the first example, I would now say something like, "Johnson goes back to the track, to the wall, he jumps and slams into the fence, falls down onto the warning track, rolls over and sits up, and it was out of his reach, a two-run home run for Bazzana."

​

In the second, rather than extending one word while figuring things out, wouldn't it be better to say this? "Downfield to Lawrence on a fade, back of the end zone, slight bobble, he has it against Davis on the coverage, and he starts to celebrate, but he's ruled out of bounds before he had it."