Helmet v Mask

[Tim C]

Jim:

you squeak through on this one:

Physics would say that a foul ball is unaffected by the make up of the bat. A foul ball and a fair ball impart different stresses on the ball.

So I would say you missed this one.

On "helmet" use in MLB you just slipped in there:

There is a "net gain" of one umpire in helmet this season. There are two new wearing and one went back traditional.

Pretty good for an OSU fan.

;-)

[mick]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1

Why does the ball carry farther off an aluminum bat than it does a wooden one when it is hit normally?? If it goes faster and farther forward, seems to me it will do the same backwards. So if a pitcher is throwing 95 and it is fouled straight back into my mask, don't you think it will be coming back at me faster if fouled off an aluminum bat then a wooden bat???

Jim,
It seems to me that, given the increased coefficient of restitution of the aluminum bat (over the wood bat) traveling in the opposite direction of the path of the ball, would actually slow the ball more than a wood bat would slow the ball (given equal force vectors).

I will concede the aluminum bat may well direct the path of the ball higher, but not faster, due to the trampoline effect of the hollow bat.
mick

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by mick

Jim,
It seems to me that, given the increased coefficient of restitution of the aluminum bat (over the wood bat) traveling in the opposite direction of the path of the ball, would actually slow the ball more than a wood bat would slow the ball (given equal force vectors).

I will concede the aluminum bat may well direct the path of the ball higher, but not faster, due to the trampoline effect of the hollow bat.
mick

Of course, if the ball travels higher, the vertical component of its velocity will be greater when it comes back down.

Other than that, it seems like physics U.P. there work the same as everywhere else.

[jicecone]

Wow, I just got hit with a 92mph deflected fast ball.

Sure am glad they were using wood, because it could have been 92.5mph, if it was aluminum.(or vice a versa)

Shall we put things in perspective here gentlemen.

I have found, that most of the time that officials have been hurt from a deflection with a mask, they were not squared up and using the equipment properly. I can understand the helmet offering more protection, because it protects more area. So if it fits for you, go for it.

In the past approximately 2000 games I have officiated in, the mask has worked just fine, thank you.

Im still trying to bring about the use of fleciheimer (sp) shorts for baseball. Even though they will never be allowed in Alabama. But then again, if I were my hat under my helmet, maybe that won't notice my legs when I take off the helmet!!!!!

Now for the future, YOUR ALL WRONG. We will all be using a media designed helmet that will look something like a apache helicopter pilots helmet. Instead of a night vision scope, we will be looking into a graphical image that will show the perfect strike zone for the batter at bat. Speakers will be on the side of the helmet and automatically announce the result of the pitch. In MLB, the scoreboard will automaticaly register the pitch (wireless of course). We will be tasked with the mundane mechanic of properly signaling the announced strike/ball call. The helmet will have proper HVAC and room for a hat, (speacial for Alabama). Oh yea, the plate umpire will be wearing the new and imporved fleichiemer shorts, COOL.

[Tim C]

Mark noted:

Of course we are all aware that the statement is only true until the ball reaches the maximum velocity of 14 feet per second per second. Then is will always be the same "speed."

"How" you wear a mask is just as important as to "iffin'" you wear a mask or a helmet thingy.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Tim C
Mark noted:

Of course we are all aware that the statement is only true until the ball reaches the maximum velocity of 14 feet per second per second.

14 feet per second per second is a measure of acceleration, not velocity. That's about all I remember from HS physics.

[3appleshigh]

As I said earlier, the reasoning for my theory is this

"When in this day and age of the 'tell everyone something sucks, but tell no one something is good', the number of people who try the helmet and stick with it vs. go back to the traditional mask must be hugely lopsided in favor of the hockey mask."

This is because in most posts I have ever seen on this topic, there is 1 or 2 who have swiched back and about 4-5 who stuck with it. Normally in something like this the numbers would be switched and the actual fact would be about 50-50. So here we have a distinct advantage on the possitive side in a mainly negitive environment, therefore my thought is the above statement.

This is a THEORY not a presentation of FACT, hence the use of the word MUST rather than the word IS. But you knew that because of your need for proper use of the english language. Lucky for you, you never type fast and always have time to proof read. Good on ya, mate.

[mick]

Originally posted by 3appleshigh
Lucky for you, you never type fast and always have time to proof read. Good on ya, mate.

Slowing my calls has improved the quality of my games, both on the diamonds and on the hardwood.
mick

[officialtony]

Originally posted by 3appleshigh


". . . . must be hugely lopsided in favor of the hockey mask."

. . . there is 1 or 2 who have swiched back and about 4-5 who stuck with it.



HUGELY LOPSIDED ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


I look at " must be " as a synonym phrase for " has to be/have to be ". So when someone says " must be " I infer they are saying " has to be " hugely lopsided. Thus, the question " what facts support that statement ?" What you proposed above is neither fact nor " hugely lopsided ". That was my contention. It still is.
In offering an opinion, I respect your right to provide it. When one tries to support an opinion with " facts ", I like to know the facts before I consider changing my way of thinking. In your case, you offered an opinion, substantiated by alledged facts - which were not facts at all. My only point there.
So. . . . I still disagree with your thinking since you were unable to substantiate your statements of " fact ".

Also, It is better to take my time to do things right than to do things in a half ash manner - whether it is typing, offering opinions, or umpiring ( among a multitude of other tasks ). That is part of my style.

Remember, all herein is . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . just my humble opinion.

[3appleshigh]

Please don't confuse anything you say with humble, because you are not. Not in the least.

Also assuming "must be = has to be = is" is plain wrong, read the words used, don't impose your own meaning. You do know what happens when you assume. Also neither of those phrases say that it is, they say what ones belief is. (It is dark outside it must be night. It is dark outside it has to be night. Nope it IS 12:00 noon, dark and cloudy.)

Also on a forum, attacking anothers english or typing mistakes is a sure sign of weakness, it bores most people on the forum and is plainly childish. I, on average have posted properly on here, but one or two silly errors, and I admit after reading later some of what I said was tough to read, does not require your childish retorts.

Our opinions differ, my theory was a look at what the public normally does (eg. have a bad meal tell 10 of your friends, have a good meal tell 1) and what I had seen in the previous posts on this subject here and on other forums, I then extrapolated the THEORY or maybe a hypothesis is better for you. I never claimed to prove the theory. Is this an exact theory HELL NO, but it does have some merit, even if you don't either a) like it or b) agree with it.

At least I contributed to th conversation at hand, you don't offer anything at all. Just a voice crying, pointing fun and saying your wrong. You have no facts that what I say is right or wrong. You don't even post a theory of what you think is the case. Just point your fingers and slink into the night. Remember "when you point a finger three more point back at you."

Also - Yes sir, slowing the pace often helps improve ones game, on the field and on the forum, but sometimes, when one is at work, things come up and things get posted before you can proof read or whatever. If I was using IM slang and the like, I can understand a shot here and there, but his remarks were simply a defence mechanisim for his short comings.

[officialtony]

If you are so busy at work that you cannot read all the posts, then you probably should not make statements that are not true until you do.
You indicate that I had not posted my feelings on the topic - that I only chose to "pointing fun ( whatever that means ) and saying your wrong ". Please refer to both pages 1 and 2 of the thread and see that I have offered my opinion on both pages and supported that opinion with facts on one page - something you were unable to do.
You can extrapolate any theory you want, but when you make statements like " hugely lopsided " your " facts " should support those statements - if you want to be considered credible.
And if you don't want to be considered credible, that's OK too. Just keep making mistatements like " you don't even post a theory of what you think the case is " when there is a very good post describing EXACTLY what I think.

Now high apples - I will go " slink into the night ".

I should have been true to my word and let this topic die.
My apologies to the others for extending this dead horse.

I'm slinking now.

[DG]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

14 feet per second per second is a measure of acceleration, not velocity. That's about all I remember from HS physics.

To accelerate is to go faster. Push the gas pedal and you accelerate. Velocity is speed, as in how fast are you going. 14 fps is speed, ie how fast is the pitch. A pitch, once released, has no incentive to accelerate, no force behind it to cause it to go faster, and only resistance ahead of it to slow it down. In the short distance between the plate and home a fastball slowing down is imperceptable.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by DG

To accelerate is to go faster. Push the gas pedal and you accelerate. Velocity is speed, as in how fast are you going. 14 fps is speed, ie how fast is the pitch. A pitch, once released, has no incentive to accelerate, no force behind it to cause it to go faster, and only resistance ahead of it to slow it down. In the short distance between the plate and home a fastball slowing down is imperceptable.

No. Accelerate does not mean "to go faster." If car A is going 30mph and car B is going 60mph, car B is going faster but it is not necessarily accelerating.

Accelerate means to increase in velocity over a period time. What Bob said is correct. The measurement of 14 ft per second per second Is a meaure of acceleration. Bob did not say a foul ball accelerates, he just noted the proper use of a term.

[mbyron]

Originally posted by GarthB
No. Accelerate does not mean "to go faster." If car A is going 30mph and car B is going 60mph, car B is going faster but it is not necessarily accelerating.

Accelerate means to increase in velocity over a period time. What Bob said is correct. The measurement of 14 ft per second per second Is a meaure of acceleration. Bob did not say a foul ball accelerates, he just noted the proper use of a term.

Almost right. Acceleration is change in velocity over time, and the "distance per second per second" units are correct measures of acceleration.

In fact, then, every pitch accelerates in two ways as it travels from pitcher to catcher. In slowing down, it decelerates; and in curving due to the force of gravity, it experiences centripetal acceleration.

Glad to help get that straight, for whatever it's worth. No, no, don't thank me...

[DG]

Originally posted by GarthB
[/B]

No. Accelerate does not mean "to go faster." If car A is going 30mph and car B is going 60mph, car B is going faster but it is not necessarily accelerating.

Accelerate means to increase in velocity over a period time. What Bob said is correct. The measurement of 14 ft per second per second Is a meaure of acceleration. Bob did not say a foul ball accelerates, he just noted the proper use of a term.

[/B][/QUOTE]Straight out of my Webster's New World - "to cause to happen sooner - to go faster, as in my example of pushing the gas pedal (accelerator) to cause the car to go faster. When you are at a stop light and it turns to green and you push the gas pedal you are accelerating. When you get up to the speed limit and put the cruise control on you are cruising at a constant rate of speed, meaured in miles per hour, or it could be measured in feet per second. Feet per second per second (feet per second square) is a measure of acceleration and you are correct, and so was Bob. I just missed the second "per second" when I read his post.

[Edited by DG on Jul 15th, 2005 at 10:30 AM]