REALLY throwing the heat!

[Larry in TN]

Not sure if this has been posted before but I just love the last line at the bottom!  A guess that'll be a pinch-runner, then?

 

Relativistic Baseball:  https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/

 

 

[mjr_2013]

I think the next time someone asks me for an application of 9.01©, I'll give this 6.08(b) example instead.

 

It should get the point across.   

[MB_Ump]

The author says the bat is hit first, then the batter; so I think I have a dead ball strike here.

[Justin]

I'm a math and physics guy in my day job, and I've been following Randall's stuff from the beginning. The "what if..." section is a fairly new addition - the webcomic itself has some hilarious insights into a lot of math/physics/computer science topics.

 

Of course, this particular article is pretty high on my list of favorites.

[afaber12]

The author says the bat is hit first, then the batter; so I think I have a dead ball strike here.

 

That assumes that the batter is trying to hit the ball as in the premise of the question. (6.05g) Unless he's got a really funky stance, like with the bat pointing back towards the pitcher behind his head instead of the more traditional resting-on-the-shoulders pose, or he somehow anticipates the 90%C fastball - and if he knows its the old relativistic number one, why the heck is he still standing in the batter's box - I'm pretty sure he gets hit before the bat does. Of course it'd still take one heck of an umpire to spot that difference without benefit of super-duper-slow-mo replay.

 

Normally when a batter is hit by pitch, depending on the level of play there'll be some issue as to do you require the batter to make a move to get out of the way, or is it as long as he doesn't move to get hit to determine whether he gets first base. (6.08b2) I'd be inclined - as one of the umpires called in to replace the original crew who are most likely "incapacitated" - to give the batter the benefit of the doubt, and rule he was eligible to be awarded first. However, even if the bat somehow remains untouched, some part of the ball would have gone through the strike zone. (I'm pretty sure that'd be the case even if it was somehow accidentally flung out the back towards second during the windup.) It would seem that it would have to be called a dead ball strike (or a foul if it does hit the bat before the batter). (6.08b1)

 

Though there is reference to a ball coming apart during play (5.02 comment), it seems that it was anticipated more as part of the cover coming off the ball but otherwise remaining intact. At least leaving the core as a whole or mostly whole object. There seems to be no reference or allowance for a ball to be entirely disintegrated during play. I'd say that's a pretty big over-site on the part of the powers that be.

 

Last thoughts: If you believed the pitcher knew he was about to throw a relativistic pitch, would you eject his expanding, super-heated dust cloud for throwing at the batter (8.02d), or does he also need to have read the article and known what the likely result would be? If not for that, would you eject said cloud for delivering a defaced ball (8.02a), or is he safe (so to speak) because it wasn't defaced when the ball left his hand? If there are runners on base at the time, would you call a balk and award the runner's replacements from several towns over their next base for throwing to a base(s) without stepping to that base? (8.05c) If no runners are on, would you deem it a quick pitch because he "... deliver[ed] the ball in a deliberate effort to catch the batter off guard..."? (8.01b comment)

 

Like the rulebook says in the comment for 8.05e, remember: "The quick pitch is dangerous and should not be permitted."

[lilleaguer]

A ball that hits the bat first, then the batter (while he's in the box) is a foul.

 

-LL

[JHSump]

Not sure if this has been posted before but I just love the last line at the bottom!  A guess that'll be a pinch-runner, then?

 

Relativistic Baseball:  https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/

Yes, it was posted before, but good enough for a repost!

 

 

I'm a math and physics guy in my day job, and I've been following Randall's stuff from the beginning. The "what if..." section is a fairly new addition - the webcomic itself has some hilarious insights into a lot of math/physics/computer science topics.

 

Of course, this particular article is pretty high on my list of favorites.

@Justin

Hey, that's my day job too!

 

Wait, are you the guy across the hall????

 

I guess not, since you're in Buffalo.  Hahaha.  Some 500 miles north of me.

[JHSump]

Relativistic pitching certainly qualifies as malicious...something.  Not malicious contact, but malicious for sure.  No contact necessary.

 

Of course, good luck on being around to give your ruling.

[Larry in TN]

Of course it'd still take one heck of an umpire to spot that difference without benefit of super-duper-slow-mo replay.

 

Especially when that umpire is already so busy disintegrating, himself...

[afaber12]

 

Of course it'd still take one heck of an umpire to spot that difference without benefit of super-duper-slow-mo replay.

 

Especially when that umpire is already so busy disintegrating, himself...

 

 

Again, I'm thinking that call would be made by the replacement umpires. Besides, the nanosecond or two between the light from the event reaching the plate umpire and the point where he starts disintegrating probably wouldn't constitute proper timing to make the call.

[Mark Pepper]

I have a foul ball here.  But I find the disintegration at the subatomic level of the catcher, PU, backstop, stands, and the surrounding city blocks to be flagrantly unsporting.  I'm ejecting the pitcher and the HC:  OBR 9.01(d), FED 3-1-1g,10-1-6 

[Rich Ives]

Has the article been peer-reviewed? 

[JHSump]

Has the article been peer-reviewed? 

Hahaha...

 

If you mean "officially" I doubt it.

 

But, in practice, yes: at least a few of us physics/math guys have read it over carefully and judged it reasonable.  If you could get a baseball up to that speed, you'd produce a heck of a mess, just as described.

[noumpere]

 

Has the article been peer-reviewed? 

Hahaha...

 

If you mean "officially" I doubt it.

 

But, in practice, yes: at least a few of us physics/math guys have read it over carefully and judged it reasonable.  If you could get a baseball up to that speed, you'd produce a heck of a mess, just as described.

 

Wouldn't the hand have to be up to that speed before the ball was released?  Mightn't that cause problems resulting in the ball not being released?

[afaber12]

 

 

Has the article been peer-reviewed? 

Hahaha...

 

If you mean "officially" I doubt it.

 

But, in practice, yes: at least a few of us physics/math guys have read it over carefully and judged it reasonable.  If you could get a baseball up to that speed, you'd produce a heck of a mess, just as described.

 

Wouldn't the hand have to be up to that speed before the ball was released?  Mightn't that cause problems resulting in the ball not being released?

 

 

I wouldn't have thought the problem would be that the hand was moving so fast the ball couldn't be released. Ignoring the arm undergoing a similar process to that described by the ball (since it would have to be moving at a similar speed to the what the ball achieves) and ignoring the presumably very likely issues of injury given the stresses on the arm (even the $6 Million Dollar Man would have issues trying to throw a ball that hard), I imagine that there'd be some issues with your body experiencing the passage of time at different speeds.

 

Besides, the article said magic was involved: normal pitching motion, instant magical acceleration after leaving the hand.

 

Which makes me think... You're meant to be set when observing a play. With your head still you've got a stable point to observe from, you're most likely to see what's happening clearly. But if you could somehow be travelling at a relativistic speed and still be in a position to see the play, it would appear to happen much slower. Kind of like watching slow-mo in real-time. If you did it such that you were rotating around the play, you'd not only see it slow enough to tell the moment a tag was applied (for example), you would be almost guaranteed to not be blocked out on anything because you'd have views from every angle. The ultimate artificial system for getting calls right, eliminating the need for replay review!

[Justin]

 

Which makes me think... You're meant to be set when observing a play. With your head still you've got a stable point to observe from, you're most likely to see what's happening clearly. But if you could somehow be travelling at a relativistic speed and still be in a position to see the play, it would appear to happen much slower. Kind of like watching slow-mo in real-time. If you did it such that you were rotating around the play, you'd not only see it slow enough to tell the moment a tag was applied (for example), you would be almost guaranteed to not be blocked out on anything because you'd have views from every angle. The ultimate artificial system for getting calls right, eliminating the need for replay review!

 

 

 

Reminds me a bit of this movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0157472/?ref_=nv_sr_1

[PGOLDEN88]

Nobody left? We have a double forfeit here. Or, if it's a completed game, the stats count. Game over.

[Justin]

The creator of this comic just gave a TED talk on his "What If?" series, and used the baseball example as his intro. It's a great watch if you have 20 minutes or so.