JHSump

you're the prof, right? So an object traveling at the SOL inside the Earth's atmosphere creates fusion resulting in nuclear blast? According to the laws of physics, is this mathematically accurate? Yeah, I'm the prof. The description sounds pretty realistic, in terms of physics. Certainly, the nuclei in the atoms of the ball would have more than enough velocity to fuse with atoms in the air, releasing energy, just like in fusion reactions that take place in the Sun. And plenty of energy would be released. How much energy? Well, a common thing for physicists to do is a "back of the envelope" calculation to get a rough result, just to see if an idea has any merit. Enrico Fermi was famous for doing such calculations, and, interestingly, was one of the founding fathers of nuclear energy (and bombs). I did two such rough calculations for this situation. 1) If every proton in the ball were to undergo a reaction with a proton in the air, and release the typical amount of energy released in a nuclear reaction, then the amount of energy released would be equivalent to about 3 kilotons of TNT. That's equivalent to a small nuclear weapon. 2) Even scarier, if all the kinetic energy in the ball's motion were converted to heat, it would be roughly equivalent to a 1 megaton TNT explosion --- a large thermonuclear explosion. Without trying to sort through any other details, I suspect the actual result will be somewhere in between these results. Either way, its a big kaboom!

Well said.

Best reason I've ever heard!

One of the better in-game lines I've heard!

No, sorry. Nice try, but wrong in a variety of ways. 1) The first equation is for the rest mass of the ball, and the rest mass does not change, regardless of the speed of the object. 2) Even if you want to use the second equation for a "relativistic mass," with a speed of 0.9c the ball's relativistic mass is a little over two times its original mass, so it will certainly not be more massive than the Earth. 3) The motion of the ball will be the same as stated in the OP. It will not fall directly down. All objects have the same downward acceleration due to gravity. Something Galileo originally understood. 4) The mass of the ball is certainly not all converted into energy. The OP is correct. Nice try, but much of this is a misinterpretation of rules of physics which --- in line with the general topics of this forum --- is analogous to saying a batter that swings and is hit by the pitch should be given first base, or maybe even two bases, since the ball is now "out of play" and the pitcher is no longer in contact with the pitcher's plate. Sort of also reminds me of the Disney movie "Black Hole" which was so full of simple physics mistakes that I use it in class when discussing black holes.

Point of clarification: Is MICKEY a rat?

Originally from: http://what-if.xkcd.com/1/ Did the other site not give it the proper attribution??

Ha! A graduate student of mine sent me this link yesterday! Pretty neat description. And, yeah, this is really one situation where calling "Dead ball!" is warranted!

All that makes a great deal of sense! The discussion of the situation with bases is very good. Thanks!

"Are they aware that it's frowned upon by most umpires to clean a base?" In general, the coaches are not aware of many, many things that have to do with umpiring. That's partly because they are not really interested. I, on the otherhand, am interested. There are many umpiring tidbits that make complete sense when they explained. Often an explanation accompanies the statement (e.g., remove and hold your mask in your left hand, so you don't punch someone out and accidentally throw your mask). But sometimes we hear "You just do ________, not _________." And that's the end of the information. It would be nice, especially on a site like UE, if the explanation accompanied the information. I can understand why softball umpires will sweep the pitcher's plate (to better judge illegal pitches). Why are the softball bases swept also? Just because the brush is available, and you might as well? And why don't baseball umpires sweep bases (if necessary)? One answer might be it's rare to need to, and so you don't carry a brush. Another answer could be "it looks bad" --- but that doesn't really answer the question. If it looks bad for baseball umpires to sweep the bases, why doesn't it look bad for softball umpires? I understand why home plate gets swept (calling strikes and balls requires a clean plate). If someone knows the explanation, what is it? Do base umpires not sweep the bases (in baseball) because of a tradition established long ago (baseball is a very tradition filled sport)? Maybe Bill Klem said, "Don't do that!" Is it because the BU might drop the brush during a pickoff attempt? Is it because you can't keep your tuccus pointing away from the fans when sweeping each base (lke with HP)? Is it because you are not supposed to carry anything on the bases? ...including an indicator? (Just kidding, don't get all worked up about that!) Or, is there really no explanation other than "We don't do that, kid. So, stop." There are probably other umpiring tidbits that get passed down, sometimes without explanation.

"His call was not OVERTURNED by the PU He changed his call after getting the info from the PU" Exactly so! (There was another thread about this earlier.)

"...it upset the calm balance of the other attendees." LOL

Haha... That's the first thing my son said when I showed him the video!

Perfect! OBR 9.01 ( c ) is the ideal tool in this case. If the ruleset you are working under has such a rule, and there is no lightning policy then you make the ruling. My suggestion is to follow the opinion of the NOAA (National Weather Service) in the absence of a policy by your TD/League/whatever (see http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/). Their suggestion is 30 minutes for each occurrence of lightning or thunder. This is also the policy of NFHS.

If you have not seen this clip already, you should take a look! http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120709&content_id=34759812&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

Check out the other thread, "Does this warrant an ejection?" under Ejections (started two days ago). Perfectly justifiable EJ in my opinion.

Hmm...maybe this constant talking and jabbering is a cultural thing. That may also explain why the catchers kept up a constant --- pleasant --- conversation with me. They were also talking to the batters. I don't see/hear that during gringo games.

I hope they also added it's not wise to slide into 1B (unless it's a wide throw that might result in a swipe tag), for a whole bunch of reasons. It is especially unwise to slide headfirst into 1B. 1) sliding never gets you there faster than running --- you slow down while sliding (head first or otherwise) 2) you can overrun 1B! No need to stop on the base, therefore no need to slide. 3) sliding head first into 1B is a bad idea: this is certainly the one base where the defender may just step on your hand (accidentally), since he is probably going to be attempting to step on the base 4) since you can over slide first, there is the tendency to slide late, and if you slide head first you could jam your hand on the base, under you body, into F3,... and, finally, 5) it messes with the umpire's expectations --- perhaps giving you only a 50-50 chance of being safe when you would have beat it out running. It was certainly nice of the commentators discuss that last point.

I don't have a story about ejecting someone for using Spanish on me, but this thread reminds me of the following. A few weeks ago I did a showcase "game" for HS players from a program based in south Florida. They were touring colleges in the southeast and being watched by college scouts. I was PU. The game meant nothing, other than being a showcase. The "rules" were a bit peculiar. Nine innings, 7 batters per half-inning, the number of outs was always 1, so the defense could be seen turning double plays, if possible. After 6 batters, one of the coaches would yell out "last batter." Other than that, I was expected to call balls and strikes as normal, etc., etc. There were maybe half a dozen spectators. At least three were college coaches (the field was at a D1 university). No parents, or other crazies, of course. Every one of the players was Hispanic. Now, I know the game itself meant nothing, and the players were on their best behavior since they were being watched. But, nevertheless, this was the most fun I ever had umpiring a game, even if it was just a "practice." The play was at a very high level for HS players. The players interacted well with each other (the two "teams" traveled together on this tour), and with me. The catchers made a point of introducing themselves to me. Even though the scouts could not possibly have heard all we said, the catcher's conversed with me throughout the game telling me about their trip, asking me about my history, etc. I asked one catcher if he liked his All-Star mask, and that got us into a conversation about equipment. I even hefted his mask before warmup pitches, one inning. Every three innings the catcher's changed. Every inning the pitchers changed. Only two times did anyone speak Spanish. Once a catcher said, "Muy bueno," to a pitcher after a pitch. Another time, a catcher and a batter exchanged two sentences during an at bat. Didn't seem too exciting, whatever it was they said. After the game, many players shook my hand on the field, and I wished them all luck. I was taking off my equipment back at my car, and their bus was nearby. A few other players came over and shook my hand, one said he umpires LL back home. None of these "back at the bus" exchanges were witnessed by scouts, so they seemed genuine. I certainly had no opportunity to EJ anyone for anything said in English...or Spanish! This has been my only experience umpiring with players that spoke another language during the game.

It's uncanny how often the announcers are correct! Here they are also correct! As long as the player is not directing his tantrum toward the umpire, he should be allowed to spike the ball. Gee, why stop there? In general, any temper tantrum -- as long as it is not directed at an umpire -- should be allowed: spiking the ball, throwing bats across the field, throwing gloves across the field, tossing bases around... Wait, there's more... How about tearing off jerseys and tossing them around, tearing out hair, running and screaming in the OF, rolling on the ground, kicking and screaming,... We should allow it all. Baseball would be so well served.

"But first base umpire Jerry Meals...consulted his fellow umpires and **they** overturned his call." In the video it appears to me that Jerry Meals asked the PU what he had, then Meals signaled safe (perhaps rather nonchalantly). It appears to me that nobody overturned his call. And if nobody overturned his call, what is so exceptional about this event? Am I wrong?

...and then you woke up! Pfew! Isn't it a great feeling after a nightmare to realize it was all just a dream? Or, did the nightmare continue?

I think Fittske has a case. OBR defines Catch and Tag. Yes, Catch applies to batted or pitched balls. Tag applies in the OP. Here are their definitions. Note the similarity of the the underlined parts. A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball. It is not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball which then hits a member of the offensive team or an umpire and then is caught by another defensive player. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. A TAG is the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball, or with his hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove. It is not a tag, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his touching a base or touching a runner, the fielder drops the ball. In establishing the validity of the tag, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball. If the fielder has made a tag and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the tag, the tag shall be adjudged to have been made. The only difference between the two underlined parts is the absence of the "voluntary and intentional" release part from Tag. Is this part supposed to be implied in the Tag definition, given the similarity --- exact wording --- of the rest of those sentences???? Here is another citation: Jaksa/Roder say that for a fielder to make a Tag, they must show complete control (as in the definition). Then J/R say demonstration of complete control can be done by "showing that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional"...which is the same as in the case of a Catch. I don't have any other reference materials, so I can't comment on what they say about the differences and similarities of Catch and Tag. Can someone with other references weigh in?

You could use "Matthew" perhaps, It would set you apart. Or, maybe you should come up with a good pseudonym. How about "Max Steele"? Has a nice ring to it!

Sounds like a wise solution.