text:
Wife pitted against her husband as SD child death trial opens
PARKER -- Four-month-old Jacob Miller died an "untimely death at the hands of his father," a prosecutor said Tuesday during opening statements in the trial of a Scotland, S.D., man accused of killing his infant son.
The defense claims the infant boy was inadvertently suffocated by his mother.
Chris Miller, 39, is charged with killing his son Jacob by shaking and beating him in March 2011. Miller faces charges of second-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter and aggravated assault, and could be sentenced to life in prison if he is found guilty.
Miller's trial, which began with jury selection last week, is being held at the Turner County Courthouse in Parker, since it was moved out of Bon Homme County by a judge last October.
Deputy Attorney General Bob Mayer and Bon Homme County State's Attorney Lisa Rothschadl are prosecuting the case.
The jury was sworn in shortly after 9 a.m. Tuesday and was given preliminary instructions by First Circuit Judge Glen Eng. Shortly after 9:30 a.m., Rothschadl began the prosecution's opening statement.
"We are all here for the next several days for one reason: Jacob Allen Miller," she said.
Rothschadl recounted the series of events that allegedly led to Jacob's death and Miller's arrest, which court documents say began shortly after midnight on March 4, 2011, when Jacob was taken to the hospital in Scotland. Miller had called 911 less than 20 minutes before and reported he had found his wife, Stacy Miller, passed out from drinking and lying on top of Jacob, and that Jacob was not breathing.
Jacob was later transported to Avera McKennan Hospital in Sioux Falls, where he was diagnosed with broken ribs, severe skull fractures and bleeding in the brain, court documents say.
"Doctor after doctor will testify that these injuries were not accidental," Rothschadl said.
Stacy Miller will testify about a past incident when Miller abused Jacob, and paramedics, police officers and doctors will all testify that the cause of Jacob's death was abuse, Rothschadl said.
"The evidence and testimony you are about to hear and see will establish that Jacob Miller did not die from an accident," she said. "It was abusive head trauma."
Miller is being defended by attorneys Tim Whalen, of Lake Andes, Scott Podhradsky , of Wagner, and Ken Cotton, of Wagner. Whalen gave the defense's opening statement.
The prosecution's case is based on nothing more than "speculation, guesswork, innuendo and suggestion," Whalen told jurors.
"The state's evidence will not provide a smoking gun," he said. "They can't prove that Chris Miller did anything to harm Jacob Miller."
Whalen said an expert witness will testify the cause of death for Jacob was suffocation from "Stacy rolling over on Jacob when she was in a drunken stupor," not abusive head trauma as alleged by the prosecution.
Stacy Miller will testify that the last thing she remembers from the night of the incident is holding Jacob in the bedroom, Whalen said.
"The evidence will show the last person to see Jacob alive was Stacy Miller, not Chris Miller," he said.
The prosecution will fail to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, Whalen said.
"The facts will be such that at the end of that state's case they will have the same thing they started with: nothing," he said.
Opening statements concluded shortly after 10:30 a.m., and after a short recess the prosecution began calling its first witnesses.
Karen Evenson, the dispatcher at the Bon Homme County Sheriff's Office who answered the 911 call when Miller reported Jacob wasn't breathing, was the first witness called to testify.
Before Evenson gave any significant testimony, a recording of the 911 call was played in the courtroom.
"My wife was lying on my son," Miller says in the recording to Evenson after she answers the call. "He's not breathing."
Miller speaks fast, seemingly in a state of panic, as he tells Evenson his name and address while she dispatches an ambulance.
"She was sleeping on him," Miller repeats. "My wife was sleeping on him."
After little more than a minute, Miller apparently steps away from the phone, but leaves the line open, and attends to his child and wife.
"Jacob breathe, please breathe," he can be heard saying in the background.
A woman, presumably Stacy Miller, can also be heard yelling in the background of the call.
While still on the line with Miller, Evenson contacts Bon Homme County Sheriff Jason Bechtold and notifies him of the incident.
"It sounds suspicious," Evenson tells Bechtold. "I don't know what's going on."
Eventually, Miller returns to the phone, and shortly afterward a police officer on the scene tells Evenson that Jacob has been taken to the hospital, and the call ends.
"Since I couldn't get Chris to answer, and I heard a female screaming in the background, I just knew something was up," Evenson said in her testimony, referring to her use of the word "suspicious" during the 911 call.
The jury will continue to hear testimony from witnesses for both the prosecution and defense, as the trial is scheduled to go on until Feb. 1.


text:
Jessica demostrates target training with Osh during a barn tour. Photo by Tana Montgomery.
This entry was posted on Friday, June 24th, 2011 at 18:49 and is filed under .
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
Comments are closed.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A honeycomb is a very stable structure. If it has a larger hole, however, stability is largely lost. What might a honeycomb look like, which survives external forces in spite of a hole? Such stable types of known constructions might be useful in architecture or when developing new construction materials. So far, the mathematical expenditure required has been very high and did not lead to the success desired in mechanics. Researchers of Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) have now found a new principle that considerably facilitates the mathematical approach and produces promising results with simple means.
The conception of "coordinate transformation" may sound complex, but such mathematical transformations are rather helpful: A mesh of connected points is drawn onto a rubber skin. Coordinate transformation is simulated by extending and distorting this rubber surface. When the assumed mesh can be mapped onto material distribution, a rather universal design approach results. It can be used to direct e.g. mechanical forces acting on the material along the tracks desired.
For light, such transformations are based on the mathematics of transformation optics. So far, however, it has been impossible to transfer this principle to real materials and components in mechanics. The mathematics made impossible requirements on the material.
To overcome these difficulties, researchers of the KIT Institute of Applied Physics around first author Tiemo Bückmann found a new, simple method. "We imagined a network of electric resistors," Bückmann explains. "The wire connections between the resistors may be chosen to be of variable length, but their value does not change. Electric conductivity of the network even remains unchanged, when it is deformed."
The researchers transferred this thought experiment to practice. "In mechanics, this principle is found again when imagining small springs instead of resistors," Tiemo Bückmann says. "We can make single springs longer or shorter when adapting their shapes, such that the forces between them remain the same. This simple principle saves computation expenditure and allows for the direct transformation of real materials."
The researchers tested their method in a model experiment with a material made of printed polymer. A stable hexagonal honeycomb structure was provided with a hole. Due to its reduced stability, the distorting forces first caused an error of more than 700 percent. After application of the newly developed transformation, the error amounted to 26 percent only. The results have just been published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
Applications are manifold, as the new method can be used to calculate known composite materials or mechanical support constructions. Even special designs will react as stably as possible to external forces – as if the support construction would not have been deformed.
Analysis of a hole in a hexagonal structure: External forces strongly deform the structure, the structure is unstable. By means of the new construction method, this error can be reduced strongly. (Figure: T. Bückmann)
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) pools its three core tasks of research, higher education, and innovation in a mission. With about 9,300 employees and 25,000 students, KIT is one of the big institutions of research and higher education in natural sciences and engineering in Europe.
KIT – The Research University in the Helmholtz Association


text:
The Value of What the Phillies Have to Trade
July 22, 2014
Assessing the Phillies Trading Chips
The Phillies are talking about trading some of their players.
Before we do this, let's recall some of the Phillies great trades of great players:
1) 1918 – traded Grover Cleveland Alexander for several boxes of cashews and cash to the Cubs. He went on to win 300 games and go to the Hall of Fame. And win a World Series. the Phillies finished last 10 straight years.
2) 1930s – traded Chuck Klein Dolph Camilli and Lefty O'Doul for Cash and some Cracker Jack. Camilli became the MVP and led the Dodgers to the 1941 NL Pennants, Klein and O'Doul continued to hit for other clubs. The Phillies started to finish last every year.
4) 1950s – release Curt Simmons "because he could not pitch anymore." – Curt Simmons came back to torture them in 1964 as a pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals when the Phillies collapsed down the stretch. The Phillies could have used a third starter other than Bunning and Short–like Curt Simmons.
5) 1960s – traded Dick Allen for Curt Flood and three so so players – Curt Flood sued baseball and moved to some island in the Mediterranean rather than play in Philly, saying "he wasn't a slave" and "Philly was racist". Tim McCarver reported. Dick Allen went on to become MVP of the American League in 1972, and nearly led the Chisox to the AL West Divisional Title. The Phillies fell to last place–behind the Montreal Expos, an expansion team. Tim McCarver was traded for a used chevy and later re-signed with the Phils as a free agent.
6) 1980s – traded Ryne Sandberg, Larry Bowa and Gary Matthews to the Cubs for dog poop. The Cubs won the division twice, Ryne Sandberg became the greatest 2d baseman since Rogers Hornsby, and it would take until 1993 for the Phils to win a division again.
7) 1990s – The Phils traded Curt Schilling to Arizona for some table cloths and Vincente Padilla, a mexican-american actor impersonating a starting pitcher. Arizona immediately won the World Series. Later, Curt Schilling did the bloody sock thing with the Red Sox. The Phils also traded Scott Rolen to the Cards for Placido Polanco, who the Phils then traded to the Tigers for some used napkins. The Cardinals went on to win several pennants and two World Series, with Rolen as their 3d baseman. The Phils won one world series and lost another–with Pedro Feliz at 3d base. Basically, most of the 2000s was a highlight reel of Curt Schilling and Scott Rolen going to the World Series while the Phillies didn't. And yes, those two are probably going to get into the HOF too.
so there's your Phillies trading history in a nutshell.
Let's take a statistical look at the actual value of their players.
1) Cliff Lee – Cliff Lee has a JAWs rating in the top 100 of all pitchers lifetime. He has achieved Pitcher WAR levels above 7.0 in several of his Phillies seasons, and has been the single best pitcher aside from Roy Halladay on the Phils' staff the past few seasons. He works quickly and can hit and field his position. He and Cole Hamels were together worth more than 11 WAR last year collectively–which means, since the team won 70 games or so last year, that without Lee and Hamels, the team would have won around 59 games without them in 2013, and trading Lee and Hamels means the Phils will probably drop to around that level. He is easily the most valuable piece the Phils have to trade. He is is great shape, should pitch well for at least 3-5 years, and should fit well as a #1 on a contender. Lee's ERA+ this year is 117 and his career ERA+ is 119. He is a great pitcher, 20% better than league at all times. Lee has had three years in the past where he was 160 plus ERA or 60% better than league, which is to say virtually unhittable, including 2011.
2) Cole Hamels – Cole Hamels has a JAWS rating in the top 120 of all pitchers lifetime. He's five years younger than Lee, so he should get higher than Lee eventually. His established WAR levels are around 5.0 but he's been higher in some seasons. He pitches 200 innings a year, and he's a quality starter in the postseason. He's been a #1 in the past, as well as a #2 and a #3, and he's shown he can pitch under pressure. With the established WAR levels he has, he is a quality starter. A very valuable trading chip. Hamels is 131+ ERA this year, and his career ERA+ is 123, very similar to Lee, but slightly better. He's been a bit more inconsistent than Lee, but in his good years Hamels puts up 130 plus ERA marks, in his off years he's around league average, so he's actually usually 30% better than league.
3) Chase Utley – Chase Utley is now #13 on the JAWS list alltime of 2d basemen, and has passed Roberto Alomar. He was the starting All-Star 2d baseman at age 35, and is currently the top offensive Phillie in WAR. With the renaissance he is having this season, he shows that he will continue to be an excellent hitter for some time to come. If he were traded to the Yankees or another AL club, Utley could be used somewhat like Jeter–resting some days by DHing–and could last until age 40–and most certainly will go into the Hall of Fame. He is a 10/5 player and has to waive those rights to be traded. Utley is a leader, and a clubhouse force. He's exactly what the Yankees need as Jeter is on the brink of retirement.
4) Jonathan Papelbon – having a terrific season, nearly 2.4 WAR as a closer with 60 games to go. despite the big contract, he has an established WAR of 1.0 plus per season, and despite his contract of $10 million a year, he is a known quantity closer. Papelbon's ERA+ this year is 317. Valuable to a contender needing a closer, and the Phils are ready to move Giles or Diekman into the closer role for less money. Moreover, Papelbon wants a trade. The most valuable and most likely to be traded.
5) Jimmy Rollins – right behind Utley in offensive WAR this year, having a great season. His defensive range has diminished, but he can still hit and run effectively, and among available shortstops, he is 2.5 WAR with 60 games to go. He currently is 34th on the JAWS list of Shortstops, and can move up still. Shortstops above and below him on the list are in the Hall of Fame, and he has done things sufficient to get to the Hall. An interesting fact is that Rollins plays 92% of the games each year, and has an established hit level of 150 hits a year, and is only 738 hits away from 3000. At his established hit level, he will reach 3,000 hits in just under five more seasons from now, at around age 40. The odds that he will continue to be productive and hit and field as a shortstop are fairly great; and he could also move over to second base and continue to hit and field and play until age 45 conceivably. He has home run power, alley power and is excellent from the left side. He would be a marquee addition to a contending ballclub. Rollins is a 10/5 player and would have to waive his no trade clause in order to be traded. The Yankees would be wise to trade for Rollins and Utley as a package to replace the retiring Jeter and whatever 2d baseman they have. Rolllins would hit 20 homers a year in the new Yankee Stadium, and Utley and Rollins would give tremendous leadership to the existing Yankees along with speed and veteran leadership.
6) Marlon Byrd – currently has WAR of 2.2 with 60 games to go. Ranks fairly high career wise on the all time CF list, in the top 120 JAWS list. has an established WAR of nearly 2.0 over 13 seasons. He can field, he can hit, and he can hit for power. He had a 4.0 WAR last year and is on pace for a 3.67 WAR this year at age 36. Normally a team should not trade for a guy this age, but Marlon Byrd is having his best years every right now, and he is a proven veteran. Watching him day in day out, he seems like a proven professional ballplayer. He seems very different than the rookie I say play here in the early part of the 2000s. Marlon Byrd gets good cuts on every at bat, always has a plan when he's up, and seems to drive the ball, whether its into the alley or over the wall. He has a fairly inexpensive contract. An excellent trade piece for a team looking for a corner OF bat. Very likely to be traded, and will do an excellent job for any team that gets him. Helped the Pirates last year on their way to the playoffs.
7) AJ Burnett – even though the stats and peripherals don't look impressive, Burnett has accumulated 1.0 WAR as a pitcher thus far, and that is with 60 games to go, so he's on pace for about 1.4 WAR for the year. Not great, but not shabby. AJ Burnett has a lot of post season experience, and was helpful for the Pirates last year. He's had some good outings this year, and for the right club with run support, he can go 5-7 innings. Significantly, he's thrown by far the most innings of any Phillies starter, has 113 Ks in 136 IP, and even though the walks are high (as they are with him), he has allowed fewer hits than innings pitched, with a WHIP of 1.361. His numbers are a bit off, but his established WAR level in 16 seasons is 1.75–he's had a couple seasons where he went 4.0 plus, but basically this is what he is, an innings eater who strikes out a lot of guys, but can also be a bit wild. He's led the league in strikeouts, but also led the league in walks twice and wild pitches three times and batters hit by pitch once–he's a classic hard thrower who has trouble locating. but his career ERA+ is 104+ and he can go out and give you a gem one game, and then blow up the next, as he did in 2009 with the Yankees in the World Series v the Phils, where he blew the Phils away in one Series game, but got torched in the other. He had a 4.4 WAR season for the Yanks that year, btw. AJ Burnett should be a great trade piece for the Phils to move. He's a big game pitcher, a fastball pitcher who can throw hard and long, and a guy with World Series and playoff experience. He is the very definition of wily veteran.
This is about it for players of real value. The Phils essentially have three wily veteran pitchers – Lee, Hamels and Burnett–all of whom could make a huge difference in the pennant races. They have an established keystone combo in Rollins and Utley, which they should move as a unit, probably to the Yankees. And they have a power hitting slugging corner OF in Byrd, who can make a difference to a contender looking for a RH power bat.
The rest of the team is valueless. People may say Ryan Howard, but in fact, he has no value at all. At best, the Phils should move him to an AL club, but the better play would be for the Phils to lobby for a change in the rules so the NL gets a DH, so they can keep Howard and use him as a DH themselves, since they will pay his contract in any event.
Howard as a DH would be useful. Moving the entire NL to a DH would be useful, and the Phils have the votes. The cubs want a DH, as do several other NL clubs, and only a majority, e.g. 8 clubs, are needed. The Dodgers now have too many OFs, so they will vote for a DH. So Cubs, Phils, Dodgers. Then you have Brewers–they have lots of potential DH's. They will go DH. They were in the AL before anyway. That's four. The Mets get no offense, so they will vote DH. that's five. The Marlins don't care one way or the others, so that's six. The Giants will want to play their MVP catcher Buster Posey at DH, so that's seven. Cincinnati will definitely want to play Joey Votto at DH, so that's eight. St Louis will want to play Allen Craig at DH, so thats nine. Colorado will want nine hitters period, so that's ten. Arizona and the Padres can't care so that's 12. why Washington would object is beyond me, so that's 13. that leaves the Pirates and the Braves, who might object, but who might not.
a big argument for going over to the DH is the fact that there is currently interleague play all the time, and the fact that all teams have a 25 man roster and need a lot of relievers. a DH means less pinch hitters, and thus you can keep 12-13 pitchers on your 25 man roster, and keep only 12 position players–you only need to sub out if a player is hurt, tired or you need to pinch hit in a specific situation. What you want in a DH lineup is nine regulars who can go every day, maybe with a platoon a one or two positions. You don't pinch-hit, except maybe for poor hitting SS. So you can carry a lot of pitchers, and bring in relievers early.
Once you do this, you keep Ryan Howard around as a career DH, and just bring up Franco as your 1B, or 2B if you move Utley, and put Galvis at SS, and Ruf on 1B or Mayberry on 1B. Grady Sizemore can play RF, and Brown and Revere CF and LF. and you wait for all those new prospects to develop.
Perry Mason (2014) – IMDb
March 14, 2012
Perry Mason (2014) – IMDb. Perry Mason will be rebooted as a 2014 film, via PAUL MOTT.
The Case of the Borrowed Brunette
The original Erle Stanley Gardner novels were A+++, and so was the original TV Series, which ran from the mid-1950s to the early 1960s. Some notable points about both the books and the show:
1) in the books, Perry Mason runs around a lot–he's not such a courtroom attorney at all. He's more of an action guy.
2) in the books, he and Della Street are clearly and more explicitly in a relationship. This is something that can clearly be developed in a 2014 film. In the books, Della is more or less an equal to Perry, and in a remake, she could be made into an attorney who is a partner to perry rather than just a "confidential secretary", though they would of course still have to have all those steak dinners.
3) Perry & Della are never married in either the books or the TV show, but they have a relationship.
4) The forensic science in the books and in the TV show was way, way ahead of its time–CSI ahead of its time.
5) Lt. Tragg was aces up in the TV show and in the books.
6) Perry never lost a case on the TV show (with a notable exception or two).
7) Paul Drake was famous for his sportcoat collection.
8) Perry drove a collection of terrific fifties convertibles on the TV show.
9) Perry & Della favored steaks and martinis in the books and on the show.
10) like modern lawyers, Perry & Della worked nights, mornings and weekends, and loved doing it. They had no life outside of work, and even when they were on vacation, they would stumble into a homicide or two and Perry would be back on the job.
11) Perry won all those cases without any Warren Court decisions. He never used the exclusionary rule, or any other procedural tricks. Instead, he relied on careful cross-examination, a thorough knowledge of forensic science, rigous private investigation to get to the real facts, and accurate assessment of the witnesses as they told their stories. He was F Lee Bailey before there was F Lee Bailey.
12) the original books were written as early as the 1930s.
13) The books in hardcover first edition are now out of print and can get as much as forty to fifty dollars a copy on line. I had a complete set at one time. They are worth it just for the covers alone. The paperbacks are not as good as the hardcover versions of the books. I used to keep them in my old law office when I was practicing. Clients loved seeing those.
14) Perry Mason never took a client meeting without having Della Street present. A very good piece of advice for current attorneys–never meet with a client alone. Always have a witness and a transcript.
15) The original TV Show was supplemented by a number of TV movies which came back in the 1980s, all of which were two hours long, and all of which were hugely popular.
16) Prior to playing Perry Mason, Raymond Burr was somewhat of a "bad guy" or "villain" in a number of film noirs, as well as famously being in the original GODZILLA film.
17) Many famous actors appeared in Perry Mason TV show in the 50s and 60s before they were famous.
18) Many of the defendants in the Perry Mason TV show disproportionately appeared to be extremely attractive, but virtuous looking, young women, who didn't seem capable of hurting a fly.
19) Many of the Perry Mason books actually dealt with complex issues of law, which were capably explained by the author in layperson's terms. They make excellent reading for modern law students.
20) Perry Mason is still the Platinum/Gold standard for legal fiction, in writing, film and TV. Hopefully the franchise reboot will adhere to these high standards.
–art kyriazis
The Madness Begins
March 15, 2010
I can't believe Temple got the #5 seed while Nova got a #2. Georgetown played really well down the stretch, by the way. That was a great Big East final.
I took my boys to the penn-cornell ivy league championship game in november. that was fun, at franklin field. i still can't believe penn won at harvard.
cornell won the ivy over harvard barely, but they have to play temple in the first round, and temple is very, very good this year, that's a bad draw for cornell. temple almost never loses in the first round of the ncaa. coming out of the bracket, temple has uphill all the way, but texas might actually beat kentucky, although john calipari has to be the best coach on the planet, he used to torture temple when he was at umass, he drove john chaney crazy.
also, i like richmond to win their first round game, and then upset villanova in the 2d round. richmond has a really good team and nova never plays well in the tournament. jay wright is a horrible tournament coach. richmond gave temple all they could handle inthe a10 final and richmond beat temple in the regular season. richmond is a great team this year, much better than a #7 seed. that's a 2-7 matchup that's bad for nova.
i was watching spike lee on 30-30 on espn on that reggie miller thing and 3 points.
first, reggie miller has to be the most overrated player in NBA history. he could only do one thing, the three point jumper, and that was it. He did it well, but he couldn't pass, penetrate, dunk, rebound, run, steal or do any of the other things that an NBA Hall of Fame guy does.
second, Patrick Ewing, for all his greatness, came up short in two of the biggest games of his life, game 7 against Hakeem in the NBA finals, and the NCAA title game against Villanova in 1985, of which this is the 25th anniversary of Nova upsetting Georgetown, or Patrick Ewing choking unbelievably, depending on how you look at it. Based on how awful Ewing was in his NBA finals against Hakeem, i'd bet Nova could have beaten Georgetown in a 7 game series, and, in fact, Nova did handle Georgetown if not outright beat them pretty well that season in Big East play.
Third, Spike Lee claimed "New York is the cradle of basketball."
Uh, Spike, New York is the cradle of incredible wealth and incredible poverty, a lot of models and caviar and restaurants, and some good hoops players, but PHILLY is the cradle of liberty and hoops, pal.
ALL the great hoops players (and jazz players) have been from philly, not NY. Earl the Pearl Monroe, Wilt the Stilt Chamberlain, Rasheed Wallace, Tyreke Evans, Kobe Bryant, the list is endless.
John Coltrane is from Philly. Dizzy Gillespie grew up here. Lee Morgan was from Philly. Philly Jo Jones. Hank Mobley, McCoy Tyner, Archie Shepp, Byard Lancaster, Mickey Roker, Bill Harris, Calvin Massey. Are You Kidding Me?????
Philly is like the Jazz/Hoops capital of the earth. Doesn't anyone remember Grover Washington Jr playing the national anthem at Sixers games? and he was like the WORST sax guy ever to come out of philly! and he was great! but hey, he was no JOHN COLTRANE soloing for hours on soprano sax!
Dr. J played here for TWELVE YEARS. He played in New York for four years. New Yorkers like to remember that it was longer, but hey, too bad.
We were at the Palestra the other week and there were no less than several HUNDRED NBA all stars who played their high school ball in philly pasted on the walls there. Maybe a thousand. Maybe more. I couldn't count them all. That doesn't count the guys who were kept out of the league for gambling, or who blew out their knees, or just didn't have the grades to go to college.
It's not even close–Philly v. NY in hoops is like PROS V JOES–NY being the JOES.
Oh, and by the way, Alex Rodriguez took steroids and needed an instant replay to win the world series last year.
And I didn't see him tying Reggie "Reggie Bar" Jackson' HR record of 5 dingers in a World Series like Chase Utley did–and Chase being about 1/2 the size of Reggie, by the way, who was enormously strong and had arms like a bricklayer.
Hey, the Yankees are great. But Philly's got the Hoops. Even the guys at Sports Center know it's Philly when it comes to Hoops.
And when was the last time a NY university made it into the NCAA exactly?
Columbia never gets in. NYU doesn't have a team. St. Johns has fallen off dramatically. Syracuse is way upstate. CCNY had its glory days when the court was surrounded by caged wire fences.
In all the years, NY had exactly one great player–Kareem Abdul Jabbar, aka Lew Alcindor. But he hates NY. He changed his name, became a Muslim, and never goes back to NY. He's become such an LA/Cali guy, you'd never know he was a NY guy to begin with.
But i loved the guy in Enter the Dragon with Bruce Lee, doing kung fu and all. Now that was awesome–way better than Wilt in that Conan movie.
–art k, philly
November 1, 2009
Last night we witnessed the triumph of existentialism, or should I say, Instantiation, in modern baseball, because the alleged two run home run hit by Alex Rodriguez NEVER ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
To understand this, first we must review the Home Run Rule in modern baseball, which was first defined in 1885, and was subsequently amended in 1892, 1914, 1920, 1926, 1931, 1950 and 1955.
The key concept of the home run rule is most plainly expressed in the 1892 rule which has not been changed very much since 1892:
The key concepts here are that
1) the ball has to be fair; and
2) the ball has to go "over the fence."
The 1892 rule adds that "A distinctive line is to be marked on the fence showing the required point." Meaning, if the ball goes over the fence above the line, it goes "over the fence."
However, and this is the key point, the ball still has to go OVER the fence, not just ABOVE the line.
Last nite's alleged home run by Alex Rodriquez, as a careful examination of the Rules of Baseball in this blog will demonstrate, was not a home run, but a Ground Rule Double.
It was a Ground Rule Double, because the ball never went OVER the Fence, as require plainly by the Rules of Baseball, but merely hit an object, which was in the field of play, above the line, but still in the field of play.
As to whether the ball would have, could have, or should have gone over the fence, but for the object, which was a TV camera, that is an interesting philosophical debate (which is the same as conceiving of unicorns, trolls, a planet without war and the tooth fairy), but the result is still the same: the home run remains an abstraction, something INSTANTIATED and given EXISTENCE only in the collective minds of the umpires.
You see the replay plainly on Fox TV. At no time did the ball go OVER the Fence. Moreover, the camera was jutting a good five to ten feet into the field. Even if the camera wasn't there, the downward arc of the ball meant that the ball might have gone over the fence, or it might have continued its downward slope and hit the fence at a point BELOW the line of the fence.
Now, as a careful examination of the rules will show, similar disputes such as balls getting caught in the wiring of the ivy fences at Wrigley have always been rules as ground rule doubles. At no time have such balls ever been rules home runs, not in World Series and never on instant replay, because there has never been instant replay in the World Series or at any time in baseball.
I'm certainly pleased to see that baseball, not content with attempting to stop the Phillies from winning the World Series last year by calling a rain delay halt for the first time in World Series History when Cole Hamels was pitching a brilliant game in game five, this year, for the first time in World Series history called a fake home rum and foiled Cole Hamels again from winning.
Up to the point of the fake homer call, Hamels was pitching a no-hitter. It was obvious that Hamels was furious with the call. And rightly so. The call was utter and total BS, and proves that Bud Selig and Organized Baseball are determined to see that the Yankees win the World Series at all costs. The Umpiring crew rules so quickly that they must have been told by Selig how to rule. They didn't have time to deliberate.
This is reminiscent of 1950, when the Yankees used their connections with the US Government to have Curt Simmons, a blazing lefthander with Sandy Koufax stuff, a twenty game winner, on the Phillies, get his draft notice in mid-September 1950, two weeks before the World Series was coming up with the Yanks. At the time, the Phils had Robin Roberts, now in the Hall of Fame, and Curt Simmons, a blazing lefthander, on their staff. The two pitchers had combined for more than fifty wins. The two pitchers could each have won two games in the series and blown out the Yanks, much like Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson won the 2001 Series for Arizona back a few years. But with Curt Simmons in the Army, the Phillies barely won the Pennant, and were eradicated by the Yanks in four games.
The Yankees always need to cheat to win.
Ok, so here are the Home Run Rules:
1885 – A fair batted ball that goes over the fence at a distance less than 210 feet from home base shall entitle the batsmen to two bases. A distinctive line shall be marked on the fence at this point.
My comment: At this point, a ball "over the fence" is not a homer at all, it's a ground rule double. Weird.
1892 – A fair batted ball that goes over the fence shall entitle the batter to a home run; except that should it go over the fence at a distance less than 235 feeet from home base, the batter is entitled to only two bases. A distinctive line is to be marked on the fence showing the required point.
My comment: This is essentially the modern rule. The ball has to go "over" the "fence" to be a home run. And it has to go "over" the "distinctive line" of the "fence". Not above, but over.
I think we all understand the difference between going near, above and around a line painted on a fence, and going over a fence. It's the difference between a hurdler stumbling on the hurdle, and a hurdler clearing the hurdle entirely.
Rodriquez' ball last nite, in Game 3 of the 2009 World Series, is not a home run under the Home Run Rule. It did not go "over the fence" or over the "distinctive line", because in three dimensional space, it hit the camera before it crossed the plane of the line, and was knocked back into the field. Therefore, it never went over the line, never went over the wall, and never went over the fence.
Consequently, it was not a home run under the 1892 rule.
Are there any changes in the rules SINCE 1892 that could make it a home run? The answer is no, but let's go through them all and see.
Note that this is not a "judgment call" by the umpires. The ball has to go "over the fence" and be a "fair ball" to be a home run. End of story. An umpire or group of umpires cannot make a ball that might have been or should have been a home run except that it hit something, into a home run by philosophical instantiation, or abstractive analysis.
In short, there are no unicorns, trolls or other imaginary beings just because we think there are; and there are no imaginary home runs. C.f. Occam's razor—we don't create a multiplicity of abstract universal beings just because we name them, think of them or create them in our minds. If we create now a class of abstract home runs, home runs that might have been, should have been and so forth, we now introduce into baseball a series of abstract balls, strikes, stolen bases, catches, hits and so forth and soon there will be entire parallel universes of baseball realities creeping into games, abstract realities which have nothing to do with what's going on down at the field level, or, more pertinently, in the empirical world or in the rulebook. Everything will come down to what the umpires say and we'll have a courtroom, not a ballgame.
1914 – Should an errant thrown ball remain in the meshes of a wire screen protecting the spectators, the runner or runners shall be entitled to two bases. The umpire in awarding such bases shall be governed by the position of the runner or runners at the time the throw is made.
My comment – this is the first indication that hitting a camera should be a ground rule double. Here the rule says if an errant thrown ball gets caught in wire screen mesh, the runner gets two bases and two bases only. It doesn't matter if the ball is over the fence in fair ground, it's still only two bases.
1920 – Home Run/Game-Ending – If a batsman, in the last half of the final inning of any game, hits a home run over the fence or into a stand, all runners on the bases at the time, as well as the batsman, shall be entitled to score, and in such event all bases must be touched in order, and the final score of the game shall be the total number of runs made.
My comment – this is the famous "walk off homer" rule change. Prior to 1920, if someone hit a walk off homer with one, two or three men on that won the game, the only runs that counted were the ones that won the game, e.g. if the score were 9-8 the road team, and you hit a grand slam, you got two runs, the score ended 10-9 home team, and you were credited with either a single or a double, usually a single. Not a grand slam. But under the walk-off rule, the score ended 12-9, the batter got credit for a homer, a grand slam and 4 RBI.
Note again that the rule says "over the fence" and "into the stand". Rodriquez' alleged homer last night meets neither of these key tests.
1926 – A fair batted ball that goes over the fence or into a stand shall entitle the batsman to a home run, unless it should pass out of the ground or into a stand at a distance less than 250 feet from the home base, in which case the batsman shall be entitled to two bases only. In either event the batsman must touch the bases in regular order. The point at which a fence or stand is less than 250 feet from the home base shall be plainly indicated by a white or black sign or mark for the umpire's guidance.
My comment – again, the rule says "over the fence" or "into a stand" in order for a ball to be a home run. This changes the 1892 rule by making the minimum fence distance 250 feet for a home run instead of 235 feet in order not to have "cheap" home runs, although even 250 feet would be a pretty short distance. Of course, Yankee Stadium had a 297 foot right field porch for years for their left handed sluggers, another example of the Yankees "cheating", and then they would have an all-lefthanded staff to keep the other team from stacking up lefties against them, c.f. Lefty Gomez, Whitey Ford, Andy Pettite, Ron Guidry and so forth. This unfair advantage has been wiped out with the new Yankee Stadium, although allegedly there remains a slightly easier job of hitting to right field.
1931 – Batter/Awarded Bases – A fair hit ball that bounds into a stand or over a fence shall be a two-base hit. Note: There is no reference to distance in this rule and any fair hit ball bounding over the fence or into the stand is a two-base hit.
My comment: This is the modern ground-rule double rule. It hasn't changed at all. Most importantly, READ what it says. "A FAIR HIT BALL THAT BOUNDS INTO A STAND OR OVER A FENCE SHALL BE A TWO-BASE HIT." That means that if the ball bounces off a camera and then over the fence, it's a two base hit. If the ball bounces off a fan and over the fence, it's a two base hit. If it bounces off the top of the Astrodome, and back into the field of play, as happened to Mike Schmidt in 1974, it's a two base hit; but if it went off the top of the Astrodome and then over the fence, it would be a ground rule double according to the rule.
According to the plain language of the ground rule double rule of 1931, the ball A Rod hit last nite in game 3 of the World Series was a double. Not subject to review, not subject to judgment call. A ground rule double. It went off a camera and bounded over the fence and then back into the field. It was in play. It's a ground rule double in that case.
In 1950 the rulebook was entirely recodified and rewritten, refined and clarified:
1950: Batter/Awarded Bases: Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability of being put out, advance to home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes over the field fence in flight and he touch [sic] all bases legally; of if a fair ball which, in the umpire's judgment, would have cleared the field fence in flight, is deflected by the act of a defensive player in throwing his glove, cap or any article of his apparel, the runner shall be awarded a home run.
My comment – to be a home run, the ball must go over the fence "in flight". The only case where an umpire may exercise judgment and rule on whether a ball "would have cleared the field fence in flight" is solely and exclusively the case of when the ball is "deflected by the act of a defensive player in throwing his glove, cap or any article of his apparel". This is the one and only situation where an umpire may exercise abstract judgment and award a hypothetical or abstract home run under the rules of baseball; where a fielder attempts to block the ball by throwing his glove, cap or article of his clothing at the ball.
This was not the case with A Rod's home run last night. Jayson Werth did not throw his cap, his glove or any article of his clothing at the ball last night. Consequently, the ball would have had to clear the fence "in flight" to be a home run. Since the ball never cleared the fence "in flight", it was not a home run under the 1950 rule, as amended.
More 1950 changes:
The batter becomes a baserunner when a fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands or passes through or under a fence or through or under shrubbery or vines on the field, in which case the batter and the baserunners shall be entitled to advance two bases.
The batter becomes a baserunner when any fair ball which, either before or striking the ground, passes through or under a fence or through or under a scoreboard or through or any opening in the fence or scoreboard or through or under shrubbery or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the baserunners shall be entitled to two bases.
The batter becomes a baserunner when any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands or over or under a fence on fair or foul ground, in which case the batter and all baserunners shall be entitled to advance two bases.
The batter becomes a baserunner when any fair fly ball is defelected by the fielder into the stands or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter shall be entitled to a home run.
My comment – the first three rules make clear that deflections by the fielder and interference with the ball by objects on the field, such as vines, fences and shrubbery, are always ground rule doubles. The only case where a ball is NOT a ground rule double is when there is a deflection by the fielder, and for this to be a home run, there are four requirements;
1) a fair fly ball in fair territory;
2) deflected by a fielder;
3) into the stands; or
4) over the fence.
Note that even if argued analogically to last nites hit by A Rod, the 1950 rule does him no good. First, the camera deflected the ball back into the field. Second, the deflection was by a camera, not by a fielder. Third, the deflection was not "into the stands." Fourth, the deflection was not "over the fence."
Consequently, it's really, really, really crystal clear that what we have is a ground rule double, under the remaining provisions of the 1950 and 1932 ground rule double rules. A Rod and the Yankees were only entitled to a ground rule double last nite in game 3 of the World Series.
1955 Rule Change
The 1955 rule change is very, very minor, it just provides that if a hitter hits a homer and has an accident while running the bases and time is called, he can have a runner come in and pinch run for him and run out the homer run and score it. It has no effect whatsoever on the discussion at hand.
Ok, through 1995, that's all the rule changes I have from the source J. Thorn, P. Palmer, M. Gershman, D. Pietruskza, Total Baseball V: The Official Encyclopaedia of Major League Baseball (Viking NY 1997), c.f. D. Bingham & T. Heitz, "Rules and Scoring," at pp. 2376-2432.
Now let's hit the Net.
The rules as they exist through 1955 continue to exist and are codified in Official Rules of Baseball at Rule 6.09, exactly as they were enacted in 1950, see for yourself:
6.09 The batter becomes a runner when—
(a) He hits a fair ball;
(b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out;
Rule 6.09(b) Comment: A batter who does not realize his situation on a third strike not caught, and who is not in the process of running to first base, shall be declared out once he leaves the dirt circle surrounding home plate.
(c) A fair ball, after having passed a fielder other than the pitcher, or after having been touched by a fielder, including the pitcher, shall touch an umpire or runner on fair territory;
(d) A fair ball passes over a fence or into the stands at a distance from home base of 250 feet or more. Such hit entitles the batter to a home run when he shall have touched all bases legally. A fair fly ball that passes out of the playing field at a point less than 250 feet from home base shall entitle the batter to advance to second base only;
(e) A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;
(f) Any fair ball which, either before or after touching the ground, passes through or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through any opening in the fence or scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, or which sticks in a fence or scoreboard, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to two bases;
(g) Any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over or under a fence on fair or foul territory, in which case the batter and all runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;
(h) Any fair fly ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter shall be entitled to a home run. However, should such a fair fly be deflected at a point less than 250 feet from home plate, the batter shall be entitled to two bases only.
the deflection by the fielder rule is also exactly the same as adopted in 1950 and has not been changed, and is codified in Rule 7.05(a);
7.05 Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance—
(a) To home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes out of the playing field in flight and he touched all bases legally; or if a fair ball which, in the umpire's judgment, would have gone out of the playing field in flight, is deflected by the act of a fielder in throwing his glove, cap, or any article of his apparel;
See? It's exactly the same. The only way an upire can judge if the fair ball would have left the stadium and gone out of the playing field in flight, is if it was deflected by the act of a fielder under Rule 7.05(a).
The umpire can't make a judgment call under any other of the rules of baseball.
All the rules of baseball, incidentally, are on line and available for you all to read for yourselves at;
see also these websites:
There IS however, a rule which pertains to interference by media, and that is rule 3.15, which I hereby quote now:
3.15 No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team, umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home club. In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach's box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.
NOTE WHAT RULE 3.15 SAYS ABOUT INTERFERENCE WITH A BALL BY NEWSPHOTOGRAPHERS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO BE ON THE FIELD OF PLAY: In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach's box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play.
Since A-Rod's ball was UNINTENTIONALLY INTERFERED WITH BY A PRESS CAMERA, RULE 3.15 COMES INTO PLAY EXPRESSLY AND THE BALL IS IN PLAY. It's not a case of fan interference where the umpires are allowed to make a judgment call to nullify the fan interference and create a home run abstractly.
To the contrary, the rule is clear and express- "the ball is in play" says the rule. Since the ball did not go over the fence or into the stands or over the fence in flight, but back to the field, and since Werth relayed it back, the Yankees runners were stuck at 2d and 3d.
There was no interference, and if there were a ground rule here, it was at best a ground rule double. See discussion above, supra.
The Umps and all of major league baseball got the rules wrong last night.
The ball was alive and in play last night and/or was a ground rule double, under the ground rule double rules and also under official Rule 3.15.
The Umps had no interference discretion under rules 3.15 or 3.16 because NO FAN touched the ball—instead, an authorized member of the press touched the ball.
The camera was an authorized photographer.
Consequently, the ball was in play.
Note the difference if a spectator had touched the ball:
3.16 When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.
APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
Rule 3.16 Comment: There is a difference between a ball which has been thrown or batted into the stands, touching a spectator thereby being out of play even though it rebounds onto the field and a spectator going onto the field or reaching over, under or through a barrier and touching a ball in play or touching or otherwise interfering with a player. In the latter case it is clearly intentional and shall be dealt with as intentional interference as in Rule 3.15. Batter and runners shall be placed where in the umpire's judgment they would have been had the interference not occurred.
No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk. However, should a spectator reach out on the playing field side of such fence, railing or rope, and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball, then the batsman should be called out for the spectator's interference.
Example: Runner on third base, one out and a batter hits a fly ball deep to the outfield (fair or foul). Spectator clearly interferes with the outfielder attempting to catch the fly ball. Umpire calls the batter out for spectator interference. Ball is dead at the time of the call. Umpire decides that because of the distance the ball was hit, the runner on third base would have scored after the catch if the fielder had caught the ball which was interfered with, therefore, the runner is permitted to score. This might not be the case if such fly ball was interfered with a short distance from home plate.
The ground rules for ground rule doubles are exactly the same as the 1950 and 1932 rules discussed above, and are codified at the official rules of baseball 7.05;
7.05 Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance—
(a) To home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes out of the playing field in flight and he touched all bases legally; or if a fair ball which, in the umpire's judgment, would have gone out of the playing field in flight, is deflected by the act of a fielder in throwing his glove, cap, or any article of his apparel;
(b) Three bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a fair ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play and the batter may advance to home base at his peril;
(c) Three bases, if a fielder deliberately throws his glove at and touches a fair ball. The ball is in play and the batter may advance to home base at his peril.
(d) Two bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a thrown ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play;
(e) Two bases, if a fielder deliberately throws his glove at and touches a thrown ball. The ball is in play;
Rule 7.05(b) through 7.05(e) Comment: In applying (b-c-d-e) the umpire must rule that the thrown glove or detached cap or mask has touched the ball. There is no penalty if the ball is not touched.
Under (c-e) this penalty shall not be invoked against a fielder whose glove is carried off his hand by the force of a batted or thrown ball, or when his glove flies off his hand as he makes an obvious effort to make a legitimate catch.
(f) Two bases, if a fair ball bounces or is deflected into the stands outside the first or third base foul lines; or if it goes through or under a field fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery or vines on the fence; or if it sticks in such fence, scoreboard, shrubbery or vines;
(g) Two bases when, with no spectators on the playing field, a thrown ball goes into the stands, or into a bench (whether or not the ball rebounds into the field), or over or under or through a field fence, or on a slanting part of the screen above the backstop, or remains in the meshes of a wire screen protecting spectators. The ball is dead. When such wild throw is the first play by an infielder, the umpire, in awarding such bases, shall be governed by the position of the runners at the time the ball was pitched; in all other cases the umpire shall be governed by the position of the runners at the time the wild throw was made;
APPROVED RULING: If all runners, including the batter-runner, have advanced at least one base when an infielder makes a wild throw on the first play after the pitch, the award shall be governed by the position of the runners when the wild throw was made.
Rule 7.05(g) Comment: In certain circumstances it is impossible to award a runner two bases. Example: Runner on first. Batter hits fly to short right. Runner holds up between first and second and batter comes around first and pulls up behind him. Ball falls safely. Outfielder, in throwing to first, throws ball into stand.
APPROVED RULING: Since no runner, when the ball is dead, may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled, the runner originally on first base goes to third base and the batter is held at second base.
The term "when the wild throw was made" means when the throw actually left the player's hand and not when the thrown ball hit the ground, passes a receiving fielder or goes out of play into the stands.
The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower's hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call.
If an unusual play arises where a first throw by an infielder goes into stands or dugout but the batter did not become a runner (such as catcher throwing ball into stands in attempt to get runner from third trying to score on passed ball or wild pitch) award of two bases shall be from the position of the runners at the time of the throw. (For the purpose of Rule 7.05 (g) a catcher is considered an infielder.)
PLAY. Runner on first base, batter hits a ball to the shortstop, who throws to second base too late to get runner at second, and second baseman throws toward first base after batter has crossed first base. Ruling—Runner at second scores. (On this play, only if batter-runner is past first base when throw is made is he awarded third base.)
(h) One base, if a ball, pitched to the batter, or thrown by the pitcher from his position on the pitcher's plate to a base to catch a runner, goes into a stand or a bench, or over or through a field fence or backstop. The ball is dead;
APPROVED RULING: When a wild pitch or passed ball goes through or by the catcher, or deflects off the catcher, and goes directly into the dugout, stands, above the break, or any area where the ball is dead, the awarding of bases shall be one base. One base shall also be awarded if the pitcher while in contact with the rubber, throws to a base, and the throw goes directly into the stands or into any area where the ball is dead.
If, however, the pitched or thrown ball goes through or by the catcher or through the fielder, and remains on the playing field, and is subsequently kicked or deflected into the dugout, stands or other area where the ball is dead, the awarding of bases shall be two bases from position of runners at the time of the pitch or throw.
(i) One base, if the batter becomes a runner on Ball Four or Strike Three, when the pitch passes the catcher and lodges in the umpire's mask or paraphernalia.
If the batter becomes a runner on a wild pitch which entitles the runners to advance one base, the batter-runner shall be entitled to first base only.
Rule 7.05(i) Comment: The fact a runner is awarded a base or bases without liability to be put out does not relieve him of the responsibility to touch the base he is awarded and all intervening bases. For example: batter hits a ground ball which an infielder throws into the stands but the batter-runner missed first base. He may be called out on appeal for missing first base after the ball is put in play even though he was "awarded" second base.
If a runner is forced to return to a base after a catch, he must retouch his original base even though, because of some ground rule or other rule, he is awarded additional bases. He may retouch while the ball is dead and the award is then made from his original base.
(j) One base, if a fielder deliberately touches a pitched ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play, and the award is made from the position of the runner at the time the ball was touched
as you can plainly see, nothing has changed in the ground rules at all.
Consequently, A-Rod's hit was either a ground rule double under rule 7.05, or it was a ball in play since it hit a media camera which was authorized to be in the field of play under rule 3.15. What it was not was a home run under either rule 6.09(d) or rule 7.05(a) or any other rule of baseball.
I've looked exhaustively and so have my sabrmetric friends, and there isn't a rule in the book supporting what happened last night.
What happened also violates the laws of logic and violates the laws of physics. It violates the laws of logic, because the home run was created by an act of particular instantiation—abstract thought created a thing from a concept—what we in philosophy call a "unicorn"—which would make my old professor of logic at Harvard turn over twice—and violates Occam's razor—that you don't create needless entities through nominalism.
Instead, empiricism and realism dictate that a home run is a home run when we SEE and WITNESS that the ball goes over the fence—not that we imagine or suppose that it MIGHT have gone over the fence.
The problem with the umpires' supposition last night is that it is what we call in philosophy a "modal" proposition, an "if….then" statement, that is conditional.
"If the camera were not there, then the ball would have flown over the fence."
This can readily be recognized as a categorical statement of conditional form—namely, if there were no camera "x", the trajectory of flight of the ball would have been different in form "y".
The problem, as anyone knows, is that without an actual observation of same, there are a plethora of possible universes of possible "y's".
All we know is that the ball may or might have gone over the wall—or it may or might have bounced below the line and back onto the field. All we have is a possibility that it might have gone over the wall.
All conditionals are like this.
Moreover, accepting conditionals as true introduces a host of problems.
The medieval philosophers didn't like conditionals, and neither should we.
It's true that rule 9.03c states that
Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.
however, in this case, the A-Rod double IS covered specifically by the baseball rules. There is no room for discretion or authority to rule.
Here's what actually occurred before game 3 of the World Series according to the umpiring crew:
Indeed, umpire crew chief Gerry Davis said that his crew explored every inch of Citizens Bank Park prior to Game 3, spending time reviewing areas unique to the park. The right-field camera was one of the aspects they discussed.
"We tour the field during the series whenever we go to a new ballpark, and discuss specific ground rules and potential trouble areas just like that," Davis said. "Because we cannot control what the cameraman does with the camera, one of the specific ground rules is when the ball hits the camera, [it's a] home run."
So, the umpiring crew themselves MADE UP THEIR OWN GROUND RULE that the camera, if it was hit, would be a home run.
That would be fine, except that it's in direct violation of Baseball Rule 3.15, as cited above, supra, that a media photographic camera, if a ball strikes it, the ball is in play and NOT a home run.
The Umpires don't have discretion to make a ground rule about that.
The statement made by Umpire Davis is totally and completely WRONG. The rules cover the situation of when a ball strikes a camera held by a camera man.
Let's see the rule again:
3.15 No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team, umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home club. In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach's box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.
Ok, then, cameramen, news photographers who unintentionally interfere with the ball, and the interference is unintentionall, the "ball is alive and in play."
It's not up to Davis and his crew to make up a ground rule there. It's up to Davis and his crew to follow Rule 3.15. Rule 3.15 trumps Article 9 and the umpire discretion rules.
Now let's discuss the instant replay rule.
Here's the story on the instant replay rule adopted in September of 2008:
5. Instant replay
Main article: Instant replay
In November 2007, the general managers of Major League Baseball voted in favor of implementing instant replay reviews on boundary home run calls. [19] The proposal limited the use of instant replay to determining whether a boundary home run call is:
• A fair (home run) or foul ball
• A live ball (ball hit fence and rebounded onto the field), ground rule double (ball hit fence before leaving the field), or home run (ball hit some object beyond the fence while in flight)
• Spectator interference or home run (spectator touched ball after it broke the plane of the fence).
On August 28, 2008, instant replay review became available in MLB for reviewing calls in accordance with the above proposal. It was first utilized on September 3, 2008 in a game between the New York Yankees and the Tampa Bay Rays at Tropicana Field. [20] Alex Rodriguez of the Yankees hit what appeared to be a home run, but the ball hit a catwalk behind the foul pole. It was at first called a home run, until Tampa Bay manager Joe Maddon argued the call, and the umpires decided to review the play. After 2 minutes and 15 seconds, the umpires came back and ruled it a home run.
About two weeks later, on September 19, also at Tropicana Field, a boundary call was overturned for the first time. In this case, Carlos Peña of the Rays was given a ground rule double in a game against the Minnesota Twins after an umpire believed a fan reached into the field of play to catch a fly ball in right field. The umpires reviewed the play, determined the fan did not reach over the fence, and reversed the call, awarding Peña a home run.
Aside from the two aforementioned reviews at Tampa Bay, replay was used four more times in the 2008 MLB regular season: twice at Houston, once at Seattle, and once at San Francisco. The San Francisco incident is perhaps the most unusual. Bengie Molina, the Giants' Catcher, hit what was first called a double. Molina then was replaced in the game by a pinch-runner before the umpires re-evaluated the call and ruled it a home run. In this instance though, Molina was not allowed to return to the game to complete the run, as he had already been replaced. Molina was credited with the home run, and two RBIs, but not for the run scored which went to the pinch-runner instead.
On October 31, 2009, in the fourth inning of Game 3 of the World Series, Alex Rodriguez hit a long fly ball that appeared to hit a camera protruding over the wall and into the field of play in deep left field. The ball ricocheted off the camera and re-entered the field, initially ruled a double. However, after the umpires consulted with each other after watching the instant replay, the hit was ruled a home run, marking the first time an instant replay home run was hit in a playoff game. [21]
Citing to
• ESPN – GMs vote 25-5 to use replay to aid home run decisions – MLB
• http://mlb.mlb.com/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20080903&content_id=3412731&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=nyy
• http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091031&content_id=7586236&vkey=news_mlb
Now, let's parse all this.
What instant replay boils down to is this.
A lawyer sits in Bud Selig's offices in NYC and HE reviews the play and decides how it should be called.
The head of the umpiring crew calls NYC and asks the lawyer how the play should be ruled.
Then they decide.
Uh, what's wrong with this picture if the NEW YORK YANKEES are one of the teams in the playoffs?
Let's see, a NEW YORK LAWYER making the call? Against a PHILLY team?
Oh right, that would be really fair, impartial and just.
Incidentally, let's review the rule again:
The proposal limited the use of instant replay to determining whether a boundary home run call is:
• A fair (home run) or foul ball
• A live ball (ball hit fence and rebounded onto the field), ground rule double (ball hit fence before leaving the field), or home run (ball hit some object beyond the fence while in flight)
• Spectator interference or home run (spectator touched ball after it broke the plane of the fence).
Id, supra.
Note that the ball has to hit an object BEYOND the fence while in flight.
Not in front of the fence, but BEYOND the fence.
This is completely consistent with Rules 6.09 and 7.05(a) which define a home run as one hit "over the fence in flight".
The camera, in this case, was jutting out over the fence by a good five to ten feet.
So it was not beyond the fence, but on the field of play.
Second, because it was on the field of play, it was therefore a photographic interference under Rule 3.15, and should have been considered an unintentional interference, and a live ball in play under Rule 3.15.
Third, if not a live ball in play, then the ground rule double rule of 7.05 (b) et seq. comes into play.
What's wrong with this picture?
Let's review the criteria for instant replay;
1) is it fair or foul? Well, it was a fair ball. No need for instant replay.
2) Is it a live ball that hit the fence and bounced back to the field? No. No need for instant replay.
Was it a live ball that hit some object beyond the fence while in flight?
No. It never went beyond the fence. So no instant replay was required.
Well, it hit the camera==part of which was behind the fence, but the part of the camera the ball hit was NOT beyond the fence.
This is not a semantic issue, but a real rules issue, because if you start saying that balls that don't go over the fence in flight are home runs, just because the umpires make up ground rules before the game to make them eligible for instant review, doesn't make it so.
I think the key here is to parse the fact that the umpiring crew made a mistake before the game establishing false ground rules, by making a camera that jutted INTO the field, a candidate for HOME RUN instant replay.
That wasn't their call to make.
Under the instant replay rule, the camera has to be entirely beyond the fence for them to make that decision, end of story.
Remember, the rule is to decide the boundary issue of when a ball has hit an object BEYOND the fence–not an object within the ballfield.
The Umps exceeded their rulemaking authority. Also, see #3, below, because there's actually a different rule that applies to cameras that are in the field of play and not beyond the field of play, in which case the ball is either a ground rule double or in play. In either case the result is the same; arod at 2d, texeira at 3d.
3) There was not spectator interference, but rather, photographer interference under rule 3.15, which made it a live ball under the rules, and on the field of play.
Consequently, there was no jurisdiction for an instant reply. Rather, the umpires AGGREGATED and SEIZED inappropriately the jurisdiction for home run instant replay because they forgot their own rule book and the rules of baseball.
They got the call all wrong.
It's an insult to our collective intelligence and our common sense to say that a ball that fell short of the wall, and never went over the wall, is a "fair ball" that "went over the fence in flight" or that after instant replay, was shown to have struct an object "beyond the fence" in flight. None of these things occured on arod's hit.
And messed up a 25 year old kids' no hitter in the processs.
Did they purposefully do it?
Did the NY Offices of baseball reverse the call to obstruct the Phillies from repeating?
I don't know—go ask the Atlanta Braves. No one in Bud Selig's office was happy when they went up 2-0 on the Yankees in 1996 either.
The Commissioner's office basically wants LA or NY to win the series because that's good for TV ratings.
They like to ignore Philly and Atlanta even though we're much more rabid about baseball than New Yorkers, most of whom are too poor to afford to go to a game, whereas in Philly or Atlanta, it's mostly the middle class who attend.
And if we have to cheat and violate the rules to make the Yankees winners, what the hay?
Just remember Curt Simmons' draft notice, and Bud Selig's ridiculous rain delay call in last year's Game Five in Philly.
Definitely be sure there's bias against the Phillies in NYC.
And of course, let's not forget they used a single New York Lawyer as the judging panel for instant replay of a World Series play involving….
The New York Yankees.
Like that's really fair.
This is the Second World Series in a row where Bud Selig has personally messed around with our ace, Cole Hamels, in a World Series game.
First was Game Five in World Series 2008, in which Cole Hamels was shutting the door down on Tampa Bay. Selig allowed the game to proceed in the rain, then let Tampa Bay score a cheap run in rain soaked conditions against Hamels, a cheap run in conditions not fit to play in, and then Selig announced the game would be suspended—a first in Series history—which infuriated not only the Phillies, but Hamels, who had pitched well enough to win. Last year the story line was supposed to be tampa bay to win, cindarella, last place to world champions. New york didn't want philly winning.
Conspiracy theorists, you are right if you think Selig hates Hamels.
And now this year, Selig sends Davis and an experienced umpiring crew out, and they set up illegal ground rules, and use the first chance they get, to award a two run instant replay home run—an existential, instantiated home run—an abstraction if you will, because nothing ever left the park or ever went over the fence in flight—for the sole purpose of screwing up Cole Hamels' game in game 3, the pivotal game of the 2009 world series.
I need not point out how furious Hamels must have been with all this BS; for the second year in a row, he's been messed with, not by the opposing lineup, but by lawyers and umpires and the commissioners' office. They just won't let him do his job.
I understand why he might have hung a few curves the next inning to Swisher and Damon.
What I don't understand is why the Phillies don't aggressively move
1) for Bud Selig's immediate ouster as Commissioner of Baseball; and
2) an immediate amendment of the baseball instant replay rule requiring that the review of plays always be done in a neutral city by an impartial panel of three arbitrators, not lawyers, with one chosen by each team and the third chosen by the other two.
3) And the umpiring crew and ground rules be reviewed two weeks in advance of the World Series by the front office of each team, and by the teams attorneys, to be sure there are no conflicts with the Rules of Baseball.
Even my 80 year old mother in law, who just had eye surgery, who watched the game last night, and used to be a Brooklyn Dodger fan from Brooklyn, saw the play last night and she knew that the A-Rod hit wasn't a home run.
"it didn't go out of the park" she said. "how could it be a home run?"
Exactly. To be a home run, under rule 7.05(a), and in the common sense of every fan, a home run must go over the fence in flight.
And to be a home run for instant replay purposes, it has to go over the fence in flight and THEN hit some object.
Not hit some object which inteferes with the ball from going over the fence in flight. That's a ground rule double or a ball live in play, as we have seen from our discussion, at length, of the rules.
The difference last night was two runs.
But the difference, from our perspective, is the lawlessness of the Bud Selig regime.
A regime which bars Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame, but tolerates steroid use by the likes of A-Rod and David Ortiz, and turns a blind eye to the income inequalities between teams like the Yankees and the Twins that keep baseball from truly being competitive.
A regime which makes arbitrary and capricious decisions each and every year about rain delays, rain suspensions, instant replay home runs in the World Series, and which plays games of law and fate which affect a man's life and career in the case of Cole Hamels, who is a truly great pitcher along the lines of a Steve Carlton.
In fact, if you study Hamels stats, you will see that his 2009 is to his 2008, as Carlton's 1973 was to Carlton's Cy Young 1972.
I expect Cole Hamels to have a very bright future.
And he will not take much more of this abuse from Bud Selig and his cronies.
And neither should we philly fans.
And New York Yankee fans, you are cheating to win.
And to think I actually shed tears for you guys on 9/11.
And by the way, your NY Giants got rolled by the Eagles. At least the NFL runs a fair league. Thank you Pete Rozelle Paul Tagliabue and your successors.
Guess those memories of Joe Namath are starting to fade, eh?
–art kyriazis, philly
home of the world champion phillies, 2008 world champions
2008, 2009 National League pennant champs
August 17, 2009
Is it just me, or watching Elvis and Don Draper, do I get the feeling that back in 1961, smoking, drinking, and driving drunk, were GOOD for you?
That chasing women, even if you were married, was what men were supposed to do no matter what? and that this was ok as long as you came back to your wife at the end of the road trip or whatever?
the flip side of all this is getting inside of don draper's creative process, which seems to require that 1) he gets a new account 2) he can't think of an idea 3) he needs to bed down some new conquest not his wife in a seedy motel 4) the plane ride back or in his office later, he suddenly and brilliantly spits out the ad idea of the century for the account.
i'd think it was a crock, except my brother in law is an ad guy and i've seen his creative side work like this (except for all the wild sex) (I'm joking, he actually made don draper look like a monk back in the day) (that would be the chiat day).
speaking of monk, he's back, and they've announced it's his final season. this is rare for a tv show to say "that's all folks".
so the question begins, how many episodes will they devote to solving trudy's murder before they wrap it all up? It's been what, seven, eight years, and Monk has one case, one huge case, he's never solved–the case of his wife Trudy's murder.
It has to be solved.
Finally, a word about Elvis. "kid creole" is actually a very fine movie. the early elvis movies, from before 1962, are pretty good, and even the vintage ones, from the 60s, have fine qualities about them.
–art kyriazis
philly home of the world champion phillies


text:
NetWellness is a global, community service providing quality, unbiased health information from our partner university faculty. NetWellness is commercial-free and does not accept advertising.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Infectious Diseases
Contageous before flu symptoms?
Is it possible to contract the flu from someone before they know they are sick or is the flu only contageous after the person starts exhibiting symptoms. Also, can the flu virus circulate throughout the air of enclosed places, or do you have to be close to someone who is sneezing/coughing in order to contract the flu. Thank you.
Usually, flu is transmitted by touch, sneezing, etc as you note. Often this is direct contact (hands) or droplets (sneezing, etc.), particularly if you are 3 feet or less from the person who is sick and is coughing, etc. Usually the person is sick before transmission to a second person occurs.
Gary Roselle, MD
Professor of Clinical Medicine
College of Medicine
University of Cincinnati


text:
Zero tolerance policies in schools first became popular in the 1980's, when they were first being used for military purposes. Zero tolerance policies are those which make violence, drugs, weapons, and sexual harassment strictly prohibited in schools. Punishment would be very severe, immediate, and with no chance for redemption or self-correction, even for the smallest infraction, ranging from long after school detentions to expulsion and mandatory attendance to rehab facilities. Schools who create and enforce these policies often have good intentions, and have the student's best interests in mind, yet the policies are often poorly planned, and lack much needed common sense. Many school zero tolerance policies make no room for exceptions, and refuse to evaluate many harmless situations.
Here are some examples in which innocent and bright schoolchildren have dealt with the wrath of their schools' zero tolerance policies:
- A 14-year old boy, whose father and stepfather were serving in the military was expelled for drawing a stick figure picture of the US military fighting the Taliban. The drawing was seen as highly inappropriate and destructive to the learning environment.
- An 11-year old boy died at school due to a severe asthma attack because his school's zero tolerance policy regarding drugs prohibited him from possessing his inhaler on school grounds.
- A six-year old boy in the Christina School District was expelled for bringing a Cub Scouts dinner knife to school to cut his food. The school associated this small knife with rape and arson. The school later agreed to reduce the punishment for 5 and 6 year olds with such weapons to a mandatory 3-5 day suspension.
- A 13-year old girl who was a straight-A honor roll student was expelled and required to attend a 9-week boot camp session after bringing a bottle of cherry 7-up with a few drops of alcohol to school and serving it to 11 people. The people she served it to were also expelled, half of them not knowing that the drink contained alcohol. Those who did not know had their expulsion lifted. The girl's parents were outraged, and the girl felt the punishment was much too harsh.
- A Kindergarten student was suspended for making a finger gun at school. The school thought he was armed with a dangerous weapon.
While it certainly helps to keep drugs, violence, and weapons out of schools. Administrators must learn common sense when applying these policies. They need to evaluate the situation and look at the context, and decide whether the situation is truly dangerous. Using extreme punishments for harmless situations not only destroys students' lives, but it takes attention away from students who cause real trouble.
Zero tolerance policies need not be abolished, but they require some revision and rethinking. Zero tolerance policies need to be slapped with some common sense. School administrators must put effort into evaluating the context and the severity of situations, and must not jump to quick and ineffective resolutions.
Students must be given a chance to correct their mistakes, if they are even making a mistake in the first place.


text:
VH1's New Show 'The Gossip Game' — Refreshing or Ratchet? [POLL]
This week, VH1 premiered the first preview for their new show The Gossip Game. The show comes from Mona Scott-Young, the executive producer of the controversial shows, Love & Hip Hop and Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta.
The Gossip Game is focused on seven women who each work in a different part of hip-hop media, and from that description, it seems like it'll be a breath of fresh air from VH1's reality TV show antics — but the trailer proves otherwise.
The two most recognizable names from the show are Angela Yee and K. Foxx, who each respectively co-host two of NYC's hottest morning hip-hop radio shows (Angela's "Breakfast Club" on Power 105.1 with Charlamagne tha God and DJ Envy, and K. Foxx's "Cipha Sounds and Rosenberg" morning show with Peter Rosenberg and DJ Cipha Sounds).
The show also follows the editor-in-chief of The Source, Kim Osorio; Global Grind reporter Sharon Carpenter; freelance journalist and columnist for Vibe, Jasfly; NYC Gossip Girl's Vivian Billings; and Ms. Drama, an on-air personality for Major Playaz radio.
While this is only the first trailer, and we only catch a small glimpse of these ladies' professional careers — notice they only show a second or two of Angela at work — it leaves much to wonder about The Gossip Game.
Will this be an opportunity for VH1 and Mona Scott-Young to present women of color in the male-dominated hip-hop game in a positive light, or will we end up with another batch of Erica Menas?


text:
Major oil trader Glencore and…
As the EV revolution heats…
At 4.30am local time, armed men infiltrated a facility located in the Ain Amenas gas field in south-eastern Algeria, close to the border with Libya, and took the workers hostage, according to the state run Algerian Press Service.
The attack began when three vehicles of armed men attempted to ambush a bus carrying employees from the site to a nearby airport. The attack was driven off, at which point the group headed towards the facility's living quarters where the hostages were taken.
Algerian forces have now surrounded the site, which is jointly owned by BP (NYSE:BP), Statoil, and Sonatrach, the state run oil company.
Related Article: Yemen - Oil War to Intensify
An Algerian security official has reported that 41 foreigners have been kidnaped by the gunmen, with a group known as the Katibat Moulathamine, or the Masked Brigade, claiming to a Mauritanian news company that it was responsible for the attack.
The Masked Brigade was established by Moktar Belmoktar, the long-time strongman of al-Qaeda in the Sahara region before he split off to form his own armed Islamist group.
The Masked Brigade have claimed that the attack is in response for Algeria allowing French jets to use its airspace whilst conducting attacks against al-Qaeda linked rebels in neighbouring Mali.
The French president Francois Hollande launched the aerial attacks in a surprise operation aimed at eliminating what he believes are Islamist extremists who pose a threat to the world.
By. Joao Peixe of Oilprice.com
Joao is a writer for Oilprice.com


text:
Excellent condition with low hours. Trailer included. Check out the list of options below!
Compass, depth dounder, VHS, halon sniffer, CD player, trim tabs, wiper, carpet, integrated swim ladder, S/S sink, 10 gal. fresh water holding with pressurized water system, pump out head, dual batteries, S/S prop, trailer, docking lights, hydraulic engine hatch.
A must see! Motivated seller!!
100 Meadowbrook
Detroit, MI 48214
United States


text:
Reviews: Anonymous
- Anonymous
- Australia, Male, 25-30
- Novice Nomad
PubLove @ The Crown, Battersea, London, England
Although I'm not sure about the overall safety of the 3 tier bunk beds I can't fault anything else about this place. Sleeping above a pub. Free wifi. Bus stop right next door. £2.40 one way in to Trafalgar Square.
- Anonymous
- Australia, Male, 25-30
- Novice Nomad
Elton Bank Hotel, Manchester, England
I thoroughly enjoyed my stay. Having a good bed and own hand wash facilities were very advantageous. Own table/chair and tv made it very easy to relax.
Hostelworld Mobile Apps
Book on the go with the new Hostelworld mobile apps.


text:
Welcome to the Boone County Historical Society's website. Located at the entrance to the Fairgrounds in Albion, Nebraska, our museum is open Saturday and Sunday, 1 to 5 p.m., from Memorial Day weekend through October and by appointment year round.
To arrange a visit to the museum please contact our President, Pat Boilesen at 402-395-6558 or email@example.com, or our Secretary/Treasurer, Paul Hosford at 402-395-6727 or firstname.lastname@example.com.
This site is currently under construction, so please visit us again soon to learn more about our organization.
The Boone County Historical Society is pleased to be taking part in the Boone County Philanthropy Council's "Big Give" on December 2nd, 2016. Donations received by the Historical Society during this event will go to painting and reshingling our historic outbuildings.


text:
Plans for a 40-hectare solar farm at Cockhill Farm in Trowbridge went on show to the public on Thursday at Walwayne Court Primary School.
Gaiger Solar, which was set up by Devizes-based business Gaiger Brothers, has developed the plans for a 20 megawatt solar farm at Cockhill Farm, off Cockhill.
It will generate enough renewable electricity to power around 6,000 average homes and will save approximately 9,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year compared with electricity generated from fossil fuels.
A community benefit fund will be established, paying £1,000 per MW installed capacity for the 25-year lifetime of the solar farm – amounting to £20,000 a year or £500,000 for the project lifetime.
Sam Gaiger, director of Gaiger Solar, said: "As a local, family-run business, we want to invest to help ensure a sustainable future for Wiltshire and we believe solar energy is a good way to do that.
"Cockhill Farm is a great site for a solar park – it is adjacent to the Trowbridge sewage works and an industrial estate, and will be well screened, so it shouldn't have an impact on any views.
"The land is of low agricultural value, and we'll be improving its biodiversity by sowing wild flowers and grasses around the solar panels to make it a haven for wildlife."
The site consists of two fields and is bounded on the north by the Kennet and Avon canal, while the railway line lies to the east, the sewage works to the south and the A363 Trowbridge Road to the west.
Gaiger Solar has also recently had a planning application for a 10 MW solar farm at Marsh Farm, Hilperton, approved by Wiltshire Council's planning department, under delegated powers.
Building work on the Hilperton solar farm, which will cover 21 hectares and generate enough renewable electricity to supply the equivalent of 3,000 average homes, is expected to start later in the summer.
Mr Gaiger added: "We worked closely with Hilperton Parish Council to make sure the application was acceptable in terms of visual impact."


text:
Not available with current selections
Aerial Mode (Camera Not Included)
Show MoreLess
Now Viewing:
Product Highlights
Configuration: Dual-Mode w/BluetoothAerial-Mode w/Bluetooth/RC
Special Order
Special Order
Special Order
Special Order
Special Order
Special Order
This item is noncancelable and nonreturnable
You Pay: $3,199.00
A more lightweight and compact version of the original Helix, yet featuring the same optically-centered design, and same reputable controller board, the Letus35 Helix Jr. is made for small and mid-size cameras, such as DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, and is suitable for all productions with up to 12 lb payloads. It's a 3-axis motorized gimbal stabilizer, with several innovative features and design aspects that provide for very efficient operation, and that existing gimbal users will highly appreciate.
This model is the dual-mode model, which comes with left and right handgrips for handheld-mode operation and a copter mounting bracket for aerial-mode operation. Additionally included with it is the Helix Bluetooth module that allows you to wirelessly interact with the Helix Jr. from a Mac/Windows computer or Android app to customize settings. Among a variety of settings, you'll be able to change follow speed, eliminate residual vibration, and change the function of the menu button.
At the top of the list of the innovative features is the optically-centered design. The Helix Jr. balances around the optical center of your camera, and this allows for the ability to execute nodal point rolls. It also very much helps with image stabilization since movement of the image sensor is minimized. And re-balancing the Helix Jr. after a lens swap is very quick and easy, as all that's required is adjusting a single axis forward or backward. Another outstanding aspect is a simple but extremely useful one - a flat-bottom design, which will allow you to simply set the Helix Jr. down on the ground or other flat surface between shots, as opposed to hanging it on a separate piece of equipment. Another aspect is the positioning of the frame and handgrips. The frame sits under the camera and the handgrips attach leveled with the camera, instead of everything hanging from above. Combined with the compact size, this positioning provides for tighter, better handling.
The Helix Jr. runs on three axes, via a pan motor, tilt motor, and roll motor. When configured for handheld-mode, it can be used in standard handheld mode or in suitcase mode. Suitcase mode entails turning the Helix Jr. 180° and holding it with just one handgrip. The camera in this case can also be turned to compensate for the 180° repositioning; and the handgrip can be rotated to function as a typical top handle. Suitcase mode allows for tilt functionality in one-handed operation. It also helps with hand-offs to second operators.
The Helix Jr. is battery-powered and comes with a 2600 mAh JuiceBox Jr. lithium-ion battery and a charger. An on-board battery indicator will keep you informed of remaining battery life. A hard custom foam cut carrying case is optionally available for transport, but the Helix Jr. is compact and packs away fairly flat, so you might be able to use an existing carrying case. To allow for the lightweight design, the Helix Jr. was made of magnesium, which consists of 2/3 the density of aluminum but is stronger and better absorbs vibration.
Note: Helix Jr. is wired according to US standards. Any 3rd-party power accessories must be compatible.
|Magnesium frame, carbon fiber rods
|12 lb (5.4 kg)
|Included Battery
|Lithium ion 14.8 V, 2600 mAh; built-in protection circuit; 0.5 lb (227 g)
2x 2-pin LEMO (input/output)
1x 6-pin LEMO port (for optional joysticks)
|Input Power
|Mount Type
|1/4"-20 camera screw
|16" (40 cm) span handle to handle (handheld mode)
4.75 lb (2.2 kg), with battery installed (handheld mode)
4.6 lb (2.1 kg), with battery installed (aerial mode)


text:
Two charged in brutal attack on Tarboro toddler
Posted November 20, 2012
Updated November 21, 2012
Tarboro, N.C. — A 2-year-old child beaten beyond recognition at a babysitter's house in Tarboro earlier this month was also sexually assaulted, authorities said Tuesday, after charging two people in the attack.
Cirilo Torido-Bastida, 41, of Macclesfield, faces two counts of first-degree forcible sex offense and one count of assault inflicting serious bodily injury. He was placed in the Edgecombe County jail Tuesday under a $855,000 secured bond.
Chelsey Elane Speight, 20, of Tarboro, was charged with accessory after the fact on all three counts and placed in the Edgecombe County jail under a $355,000 secured bond.
Investigators say Speight was watching two children for a friend the night of Nov. 3. When the mother returned, her 2-year-old had been savagely beaten but the other child was unharmed.
The mother said the injuries were so severe that she didn't even recognize her own child. She also said Speight told her a dog had attacked the child.
Speight, of 374 Northwoods Country Road, was initially arrested Nov. 4 and charged with felony child abuse and misdemeanor child abuse. She posted $1,500 bond and returned home.
But medical examinations confirmed the extent of injuries to the child, who has since been released from the hospital and is recovering at her grandmother's house, leading to the new charges against Speight.
Due to the nature of the crimes, the child and mother's name are being withheld by WRAL News.
No other information was released. The relationship between Speight and Torido-Bastida was not disclosed.


text:
Henry likened the potential departure of the 25-year-old - who has repeatedly been linked with a move to Chelsea - to last season's exit of Patrick Vieira.
"The loss of Vieira to Juventus was massive - like it would be if Ashley goes," Henry told The Sun newspaper.
The Gunners are also facing the loss of Spanish winger Jose Reyes, 22, who is linked with a £10m move to Real Madrid.
Cole did not travel with Arsenal for their Champions League qualifier against Dinamo Zagreb - which the Gunners won 3-0 - while Reyes was left on the bench.
Chelsea boss Jose Mourinho said he was keen to sort out Cole's future within the next week, but Henry said he had reservations about selling the England international to one of Arsenal's Premiership rivals.
"Obviously we want him to stay. He is one of the best left-backs in the world. We would miss him badly," Henry said.
"We already have injuries to Gael Clichy and Philippe Senderos. We have a lot of players out.
"I don't know anything about the situation with Chelsea.
"But if he goes there it will look like we are trying to catch a team at the same time as giving them one of our best assets. It would be difficult to take."
Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger has denied that the two players' Gunners careers are over.
He admitted on Tuesday that he left Jose Reyes out of his team to face Dinamo Zagreb because the winger was "unsettled" - but insisted he was "confident" of keeping the Spaniard.
And he has said the Gunners had plans in place if Cole left.


text:
Del Monte
Based on a 2,000 calorie dietSee full nutrition
Ready In
This recipe is fantastic! I don't really like tomatoes but this recipe makes them easy to devour! I added corn for a little more color and am adding this to my favorites! The corn fritters are e...
The only reason it gets three stars are the amazing corn fritters. I say find another chili recipe and then make these fritters.