Brain camp - foul or catcher's obstruction?

[scrounge]

 

 

 

 

 

Think about the coefficient of elasticity.  There is actually some give in the bat and ball prior to the ball projecting on it's path.  So it stands to reason that in that split second between the sound of the bat and sound of the mitt there could be an alteration in ball flight to to the bat follow-thru being affected.

 

 

Okay, I've given it some thought as you suggested. But I fail to see how chemical dynamic stability has anything to do with a body in motion not being able to escape it's initial velocity vector without an external force being imparted upon it.

 

Tim.

 

 

Well, well, well, look at the big brain on @BigUmp56!!

[noumpere]

 

 

 

 

 

Think about the coefficient of elasticity.  There is actually some give in the bat and ball prior to the ball projecting on it's path.  So it stands to reason that in that split second between the sound of the bat and sound of the mitt there could be an alteration in ball flight to to the bat follow-thru being affected.

 

 

Okay, I've given it some thought as you suggested. But I fail to see how chemical dynamic stability has anything to do with a body in motion not being able to escape it's initial velocity vector without an external force being imparted upon it.

 

Tim.

 

I think you guys might be talking about different things.

 

Tims point, which I agree with, is that once the ball leaves the bat nothing that happens to the bat can affect the ball.

 

Scotts point seems to be that the bat can contact the ball and then contact the mitt while the bat is still in contact with the ball -- and this might affect the ball.  Probably true, but then I strongly think that the OP would hear "one sound" and not ball then glove.  Now, maybe what he heard isn't what really happened, of course.

[BigUmp56]

 

You have to have a hindrance to have CI.

 

You sure you want to stick with that?

 

 

 

 

Okay, I'll bite. How can you have CI without the catcher hindering or interfering with the batter's attempt to strike the ball?

 

Tim.

[umpire_scott]

 

 

 

 

 

Think about the coefficient of elasticity.  There is actually some give in the bat and ball prior to the ball projecting on it's path.  So it stands to reason that in that split second between the sound of the bat and sound of the mitt there could be an alteration in ball flight to to the bat follow-thru being affected.

 

 

Okay, I've given it some thought as you suggested. But I fail to see how chemical dynamic stability has anything to do with a body in motion not being able to escape it's initial velocity vector without an external force being imparted upon it.

 

Tim.

 

 

Because it's initial velocity vector has not begun prior to the external force of the mitt being imparted on the bat, due to the chemical dynamic stability delaying said initial velocity vector?

[blue23ll]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think about the coefficient of elasticity.  There is actually some give in the bat and ball prior to the ball projecting on it's path.  So it stands to reason that in that split second between the sound of the bat and sound of the mitt there could be an alteration in ball flight to to the bat follow-thru being affected.

 

 

Okay, I've given it some thought as you suggested. But I fail to see how chemical dynamic stability has anything to do with a body in motion not being able to escape it's initial velocity vector without an external force being imparted upon it.

 

Tim.

 

 

Because it's initial velocity vector has not begun prior to the external force of the mitt being imparted on the bat, due to the chemical dynamic stability delaying said initial velocity vector?

 

THAT's a BALK!!!   I'm still liking the vaporizing bat theory..and my morning coffee... Carry on gentleman

[umpire_scott]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think about the coefficient of elasticity.  There is actually some give in the bat and ball prior to the ball projecting on it's path.  So it stands to reason that in that split second between the sound of the bat and sound of the mitt there could be an alteration in ball flight to to the bat follow-thru being affected.

 

 

Okay, I've given it some thought as you suggested. But I fail to see how chemical dynamic stability has anything to do with a body in motion not being able to escape it's initial velocity vector without an external force being imparted upon it.

 

Tim.

 

 

Because it's initial velocity vector has not begun prior to the external force of the mitt being imparted on the bat, due to the chemical dynamic stability delaying said initial velocity vector?

 

THAT's a BALK!!!   I'm still liking the vaporizing bat theory..and my morning coffee... Carry on gentleman

 

Well of course it's a balk.  But the other details are still important. 

[BigUmp56]

 

 

 

Because it's initial velocity vector has not begun prior to the external force of the mitt being imparted on the bat, due to the chemical dynamic stability delaying said initial velocity vector?

 

 

And therein lies the rub, Scott. We can only entertain the evidence we were given by the official that was there and heard two distinct sounds; Bat then mitt. If you're though is that the mitt was in such close proximity to the bat prior to the bat contacting the ball, that it imparted a force that would have altered the course or speed of the bat, I suppose we could work on an aerodynamics formula that might support that a nearly immeasurable force was applied to the bat due to air disruption, but do we really need to go that far?

 

Tim.

[Larry in TN]

I still don't understand how the mitt got out in front of the ball before the ball was hit.

[BigUmp56]

I still don't understand how the mitt got out in front of the ball before the ball was hit.

 

The batter would have almost been reaching back toward the catcher to swing late at the pitch. Who knows, fun discussion though!

 

Tim.

[umpire_scott]

 

 

 

 

Because it's initial velocity vector has not begun prior to the external force of the mitt being imparted on the bat, due to the chemical dynamic stability delaying said initial velocity vector?

 

 

And therein lies the rub, Scott. We can only entertain the evidence we were given by the official that was there and heard two distinct sounds; Bat then mitt. If you're though is that the mitt was in such close proximity to the bat prior to the bat contacting the ball, that it imparted a force that would have altered the course or speed of the bat, I suppose we could work on an aerodynamics formula that might support that a nearly immeasurable force was applied to the bat due to air disruption, but do we really need to go that far?

 

Tim.

 

 

I was just having fun using all those big words and still being able to make sense.

[blue23ll]

 

I still don't understand how the mitt got out in front of the ball before the ball was hit.

 

The batter would have almost been reaching back toward the catcher to swing late at the pitch. Who knows, fun discussion though!

 

Tim.

 

Tim, I have seen batter do this. They take a peek back to see where the catcher's glove is and aim their bat for it.  

 

BTW, I called a balk on Sunday, RH  F1 was turning to pick at 2b and actually almost stopped while doing it, it was ugly and odd. "THAT's a BALK"....OC told me that 'in no way was that a balk", and begged to differ. I won.

[blue23ll]

 

 

 

 

 

Because it's initial velocity vector has not begun prior to the external force of the mitt being imparted on the bat, due to the chemical dynamic stability delaying said initial velocity vector?

 

 

And therein lies the rub, Scott. We can only entertain the evidence we were given by the official that was there and heard two distinct sounds; Bat then mitt. If you're though is that the mitt was in such close proximity to the bat prior to the bat contacting the ball, that it imparted a force that would have altered the course or speed of the bat, I suppose we could work on an aerodynamics formula that might support that a nearly immeasurable force was applied to the bat due to air disruption, but do we really need to go that far?

 

Tim.

 

 

I was just having fun using all those big words and still being able to make sense.

 

You think?

[BigUmp56]

I'm glad you said that, Scott. There are a few members here that remember a loooong debate that took place elsewhere that involved quite a bit of physics calculations. I don't have the energy in me (no pun intended) to engage in another one.

 

Tim.

[maven]

Okay, I'll bite. How can you have CI without the catcher hindering or interfering with the batter's attempt to strike the ball?

 

Tim.

OBR 7.07, FED 8-3-1c do not require a swing.

[BigUmp56]

 

Okay, I'll bite. How can you have CI without the catcher hindering or interfering with the batter's attempt to strike the ball?

 

Tim.

OBR 7.07, FED 8-3-1c do not require a swing.

 

 

 

You got me on that one! Although I don't think we were discussing a squeeze play situation.

 

Tim.

[HeadHunterLA]

This is NOTHING!!!

[afaber12]

I think it could still be possible to call CI with the ball hit before the catcher's mitt is hit, because as much as the ball's trajectory can't be affected by the bat hitting something else after hitting the ball, the bat's trajectory could have already been affected.

 

The batter starts his swing. Before hitting the ball he realises that he might hit the catcher - or at least his mitt - and so hesitates in his swing. Particularly in this case where the hitter (I'm assuming a right-hander) hit it foul to the first base/right field side, removing the hesitation may have meant the ball was hit fair.

 

It'd have to be an obvious stutter in the swing for me to call it, let alone notice it, and seems an even more unlikely sequence of events than what happened in the OP, but it might be possible.

[Replacematt]

I think it could still be possible to call CI with the ball hit before the catcher's mitt is hit, because as much as the ball's trajectory can't be affected by the bat hitting something else after hitting the ball, the bat's trajectory could have already been affected.

 

The batter starts his swing. Before hitting the ball he realises that he might hit the catcher - or at least his mitt - and so hesitates in his swing. Particularly in this case where the hitter (I'm assuming a right-hander) hit it foul to the first base/right field side, removing the hesitation may have meant the ball was hit fair.

 

It'd have to be an obvious stutter in the swing for me to call it, let alone notice it, and seems an even more unlikely sequence of events than what happened in the OP, but it might be possible.

 

Nope. You can't have CI based on what the batter decides to do or not do.

[afaber12]

 

I think it could still be possible to call CI with the ball hit before the catcher's mitt is hit, because as much as the ball's trajectory can't be affected by the bat hitting something else after hitting the ball, the bat's trajectory could have already been affected.

 

The batter starts his swing. Before hitting the ball he realises that he might hit the catcher - or at least his mitt - and so hesitates in his swing. Particularly in this case where the hitter (I'm assuming a right-hander) hit it foul to the first base/right field side, removing the hesitation may have meant the ball was hit fair.

 

It'd have to be an obvious stutter in the swing for me to call it, let alone notice it, and seems an even more unlikely sequence of events than what happened in the OP, but it might be possible.

 

Nope. You can't have CI based on what the batter decides to do or not do.

 

You don't think that the hesitation is evidence of "an act by a fielder which hinders ... a batter from hitting a pitch"?

[RichMSN]

 

 

I think it could still be possible to call CI with the ball hit before the catcher's mitt is hit, because as much as the ball's trajectory can't be affected by the bat hitting something else after hitting the ball, the bat's trajectory could have already been affected.

 

The batter starts his swing. Before hitting the ball he realises that he might hit the catcher - or at least his mitt - and so hesitates in his swing. Particularly in this case where the hitter (I'm assuming a right-hander) hit it foul to the first base/right field side, removing the hesitation may have meant the ball was hit fair.

 

It'd have to be an obvious stutter in the swing for me to call it, let alone notice it, and seems an even more unlikely sequence of events than what happened in the OP, but it might be possible.

 

Nope. You can't have CI based on what the batter decides to do or not do.

 

You don't think that the hesitation is evidence of "an act by a fielder which hinders ... a batter from hitting a pitch"?

 

 

No.

[noumpere]

I think it could still be possible to call CI with the ball hit before the catcher's mitt is hit, because as much as the ball's trajectory can't be affected by the bat hitting something else after hitting the ball, the bat's trajectory could have already been affected.

 

The batter starts his swing. Before hitting the ball he realises that he might hit the catcher - or at least his mitt - and so hesitates in his swing. Particularly in this case where the hitter (I'm assuming a right-hander) hit it foul to the first base/right field side, removing the hesitation may have meant the ball was hit fair.

 

It'd have to be an obvious stutter in the swing for me to call it, let alone notice it, and seems an even more unlikely sequence of events than what happened in the OP, but it might be possible.

Hes not going to be thinking that or seeing that during the pitch / swing unless the glove is way out in front of the plate which clearly wasn't the case.