So..in singles, what are you doing when say "out"? You have no reason to say anything other than in, good, out, no, etc. in singles and have it be a call. The point of it not being a call falls under the category of partner communication in doubles but what's the purpose of blurting out words that effectively end the point in singles? The OP appears to have been playing singles.
You are confusing two very different things.
Blurting out words in singles may qualify as a hindrance. This is why The Code says you shouldnt talk during points if you are playing singles.
A line call must be made.
It doesnt have to be an audible call.
And to that point...So someone yelling "out" fractions of a second before the ball makes contact with the court(in the doubles case/thread it was at the baseline) isn't a call but then realizes it was in, acknowledges that it was in verbally, their partner continues to play on in the point but the opponents have stopped playing because that momentary vocalization ceased their engagement in the point. Riiight...got it. <insert sarcasm and questioning someone's integrity>.
If your "vocalization has ceased their engagement in the point" on a ball that was in play, you have hindered them. It doesnt matter if it's "fractions of a second before the ball hits the line" or "in the middle of a long, seemingly endless rally". If it's a line call and indeed the ball is out (has landed), then it's out. This is why "early callers" dont often change their calls, because they probably know they would lose the point.
You cannot say "Out!" when a ball is in play if it causes your opponent to stop play.
Whether the rule says it or not by virtue of timing and what might be sportsmanlike, I think most of us would have acknowledge that we were indeed making a call and that we indeed hindered our opponents. Otherwise, we would have waited a fraction of a second longer to let the ball bounce. You're clearly talking about an instance when a ball has time to be taken out of the air such as line drive while your partner is standing at the net and may be considering a play on the ball.
I'm talking about all instances of communicating with ones partner. This can even be for a lob either player is running down.
I get what you're saying but the rule is nonsensical when a verbalization is so clear as not only to alert your partner, but in the previous thread scenario, could be construed as a call based on the timing of the ball hitting the court. Whether a person could call a hinderance is not the crux but did the timing of the call actually hindered you from continuing to play? Again, I'm talking about a ball that was fractions of seconds from hitting the court.
In the case of my quote which you referenced, I put call in quotes because the timing is in question and the original poster referred to said communications as calls.
If a line call is made within "fractions of a second of hitting the court" (assuming the ball is close, not like a 100mph missed smash missed by 3 feet) the proper way to handle it is to wait a few "fractions of a second more" until the ball hits the court to make your call so that it's CLEAR that you have made a line call and were not communicating with your partner. This way, you can be SURE the ball is out, since it has landed, so there is no reason to correct your call.
You may always correct calls in favor of your opponents. What the hindrance rule is there to prevent in this case, are late calls that may benefit the player who made the late call.
It's pretty simple: Dont call the ball early, which isnt to say im suggesting you call the ball late. If you make an incorrect call, correct the call and give your opponent the point. The only time this system breaks down is if you correct your calls and still expect to be able to win the point. This creates people who wont correct bad calls once they are made because they lose the point, and people who call the ball "if in doubt, call it out" and then expect to be able to still play the point for being "honest".