Balk or bad mechanics?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Yeah, the last I remember, objects with mass fall to earth at a uniform 32 feet per second. Is this not correct, mccrowder?

[GarthB]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve
Yeah, the last I remember, objects with mass fall to earth at a uniform 32 feet per second. Is this not correct, mccrowder?

I remember it as a rate of acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s

[GarthB]

Originally posted by PWL
Food for thought.

I worked two JV and one Freshman tournament games last night. No telling how many balks I could have called. Worked one game behind the plate. Had to remind a few times not to pitch until I put the ball into play. That's the way it is with kids at this age level very often. Like it or not.

Would I like for them to be more mechanically sound? Sure. Makes it easier on me. I just want to sometimes tell them to slow down and relax. They're just so hyper out on that mound sometimes.

Anyway, there's times I just wish I could stop the game and talk to them. Let the ballfield be an extension of the classroom. Hopefully, they will get better as they get older.

I agree that in many respects the high school field should be an extension of the classroom, particularly when it comes to student and teacher behavior.

However, I am the arbiter, not the teacher. While I take advantage of a few "teachable" moments, it is not my primary duty.

I have also found that one of the best ways to teach a pitcher about balks is to call them. To do otherwise risks teaching pitchers either they are not balking or that they can get away with it.

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve
Yeah, the last I remember, objects with mass fall to earth at a uniform 32 feet per second. Is this not correct, mccrowder?

Their velocity towards earth increases at that rate, yes. (Your statement seems to imply that the velocity itself is 32 fps, which is not true, except right at the end of the 1st second... but I didn't think that was what you meant).

Garth is right as well.

[gobama84]

Originally posted by PWL

Snip:

Basically, it's the little stuff like not stopping long enough, or holding their arm out in front of their body. I always get the obvious stuff.[/QUOTE]

There is no required amount of time that the pitcher must be stopped while using the set position. The rule states that the pitcher must come to a complete stop.
If this is not the obvious stuff then what is?

[jprideaux]

Originally posted by mcrowder

Their velocity towards earth increases at that rate, yes. (Your statement seems to imply that the velocity itself is 32 fps, which is not true, except right at the end of the 1st second... but I didn't think that was what you meant).

Garth is right as well.

Umm, isn't the velocity 16 fps at the end of the first second ((start velocity + stop velocity)/2)? Acceleration is 32 fpsps. That is, of course, in the absence of all other forces.

Disclaimer: I'm just a rat

[GarthB]

Originally posted by jprideaux

Umm, isn't the velocity 16 fps at the end of the first second ((start velocity + stop velocity)/2)? Acceleration is 32 fpsps. That is, of course, in the absence of all other forces.

Disclaimer: I'm just a rat

Actually, acceleration is 9.8m per second per second. The 32 feet per second per second is a close approximation that is acceptable coming from a rat.

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by jprideaux

Umm, isn't the velocity 16 fps at the end of the first second ((start velocity + stop velocity)/2)? Acceleration is 32 fpsps. That is, of course, in the absence of all other forces.

Disclaimer: I'm just a rat

Just to clarify, you're asking if the velocity is 16 fps at the end of the first second because you're using the formula (start V (0 fps) plus end V (32 fps))/2? Read what you wrote again.

End V = (Start V + End V) /2?

No, End V equals End V.

DISTANCE TRAVELLED is 16 feet, if that's what you meant. End V is, well, End V (32 fps).

[jprideaux]

Originally posted by mcrowder

Just to clarify, you're asking if the velocity is 16 fps at the end of the first second because you're using the formula (start V (0 fps) plus end V (32 fps))/2? Read what you wrote again.

End V = (Start V + End V) /2?

No, End V equals End V.

DISTANCE TRAVELLED is 16 feet, if that's what you meant. End V is, well, End V (32 fps).

I guess a DUH is in order here. Sorry.

[mick]

Say goodbye, John Hastings.

[BigUmp56]

Mick:

To avoid any further embarassment to an outstanding young man would you please delete all traces of the post's made by 'Hastings' aka. Walter Rucker.

The serve no purpose other than to try to create a flame war between the members of this board and a lunatic.


Thank you,


Tim.

[mick]

Originally posted by BigUmp56
Mick:

To avoid any further embarassment to an outstanding young man would you please delete all traces of the post's made by 'Hastings' aka. Walter Rucker.

The serve no purpose other than to try to create a flame war between the members of this board and a lunatic.


Thank you,


Tim.

Brad will take care of that, BigUmp56.
mick

[GarthB]

But to get back to the subject at hand, I what them to come to a complete stop for at least one second. That's what works for me.



Two strikes and out would work for me, but I'm constrained by the rules.

I envy you.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by PWL

There is no required amount of time that the pitcher must be stopped while using the set position. The rule states that the pitcher must come to a complete stop.
If this is not the obvious stuff then what is?

I thought the rule said complete and discernable. In my discernable estimation they are not stopping long enough before they go to the plate. I want that small pause in there that tells me and everybody else they have stopped. Like the one thousand one count. That is what I'm asking for. They get going too fast sometimes.

But to get back to the subject at hand, I what them to come to a complete stop for at least one second. That's what works for me.[/quote]

There is no set time for the stop. The FED book says complete and discernable stop, while OBR got rid of the "discernable" part many years ago, because it was hard to define discernable. The pro rules also tried a "one second stop" rule, but it too went by the wayside because it was not being uniformly called.

All in all, it's your judgment as to what is or isn't a good stop.

[Tim C]

"But to get back to the subject at hand, I what (sic) them to come to a complete stop for at least one second. That's what works for me."

This ties for the dumbest statement on the internet.

HOWEVER, he also holds this record far ahead of all other individual posts.

"What works for me . . . "

This is funny stuff.