Apologies to anyone hoping for my "What is a Sport?" post today. Instead I'm going to write about the "Through the Wormhole" episode I was so excited to see. Overall, I wasn't terribly impressed with the theories I heard, especially with regards to time not existing, although there WERE a few other interesting ideas.
The arguement against time existing came from an equation derived in the 60s, in which Einstein's Theory of Relativity was plugged into a quantum mechanics formula. What happened was the time variables disappeared/canceled out leading to the conclusion that time does not exist. Well, I mentioned in a response comment last week that phyisics of the very big (relativity) is quite different than the physics of the very small (quantum physics), so either one wouldn't expect them to combine mathematically or combining them would lead to the current Holy Grail of theoretical physics, the Theory of Everything! I happen to fall in the former opinion... though I reserve the right to change my mind one day.
The first interesting point was made by a neuroscientist who believes that time is engrained in the brain somehow. He performs an experiment where people are asked to click a computer mouse which causes a colored circle to appear on a computer screen. When the experiment began, the colored circle would appear immediately upon the click of the mouse. Then the timing was changed so the circle would appear 1/10th of a second after the mouse was clicked. Once the subject became accustomed to the delay, the circle would revert back to being simultaneous with the mouse click. After reverting the timing, the subjects would report that the circle was appearing BEFORE they actually clicked the mouse! The neuroscientist related this outcome to people with schizophrenia who he believes have a faulty time keeper in the brain that doesn't allow them to see some cause and effect relationships. The correlation being that a person with schizophrenia thinks effects occur (circle appears) before he or she causes them (clicking the mouse), when in reality he or she does cause the effects.
The second interesting pondering point was that we all live in the past due to the nano and microseconds it takes our brains to process all of the signals and stimuli it receives. Sort of like us on Earth seeing sunlight over 8 and a half minutes after it leaves the sun but on a much, much faster scale.
The third idea I found to be fun was from a physicist/musician. He said we currently accept that time moves linnearly in one direction. But he believes that time, like space, may have more than one dimension! He wasn't able to expound much on that other than to say the extra time dimension(s) is(are) invisible -- just like linnear time.
There you have it. My book report, er, uh, TV report. Be thankful it was the abridged version!
Peace,
Just Joe
NEXT WEEK: What is a Sport?
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
"Through the Wormhole"
I'm really excited! Last night a new episode of "Through the Wormhole" recorded on my DVR! The topic: "Does Time Really Exist?" I'm excited because the thought of time has been in my thoughts for a few weeks. Coincidentally, ever since it was quickly referenced in passing on an episode of last season's "Through the Wormhole." Morgan Freeman, who hosts and narrates the show, made a comment about "nowhere and nowhen." Yep, that's all it took. Because it led me to ask myself, "how can there be a nowhen?" I'll save my personal thoughts on that for another time. For now I guess I just feel like telling people I'm excited.
I also feel like I should have been contemplating this stuff way back in college but I'll save my thoughts on that for a Sunday post as well. Have a great weekend!
Just Joe
I also feel like I should have been contemplating this stuff way back in college but I'll save my thoughts on that for a Sunday post as well. Have a great weekend!
Just Joe
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Infinity
I could go on forever about this topic... *pause for laughter*... but I'll be as brief as possible.
I was watching one of my nerdy science shows about the universe when I heard a thought-provoking theory; never mind that I thought I had my mind wrapped around the concept of "infinity" and now I'm back to square one.
Basically the show was about how the conventional paradigm (sorry, I've always wanted to use that word) of the universe is slowly beginning to give way to newer thoughts on a multi-verse, which suggests parallel existences. One theory was centered around electron activity. Electrons don't circle nuclei in patterns the way I was taught in school. Electrons appear and disappear seemingly randomly and can even appear in two places at once! Taking that into consideration some scientists speculate that when the electrons have disappeared, they are actually jumping to another plane of existence and creating a reality that is as real as we perceive ours to be. Sounds cool but, meh.
Another theory mentioned, which is the hottest topic in theoretical physics these days, is String Theory. I'm not really sure that I could explain my poor understanding of it in less than 10,000 words so consider that more reader homework.
There was a third theory though which, barring divine intervention and given certain assumptions, seems mathematically sound to me. I'd even say it's brilliant in its simplicity (once you grasp the concept of "infinity")! Okay, here goes: The assumption is our universe is infinite. So if you believe the universe was created without design after the Big Bang, then there was a certain probability that all of the particles, atoms and molecules involved in creating an environment that led to human existence and consciousness would actually happen. Make up any probability you like; 1 in 1 trillion, 1 in 10 X 10^trillion, 1 in a "flabbity-floo," 1 in a trillion "flabbity-floos" (or is it "flabbity-fli?"). The fact is whatever the probability is, it's less than infinity. And in fact, infinity is infinitely larger than whatever the probability is/was! What does that mean? That means however incredibly rare or impossible our existence seems, it's actually quite likely to have occurred previously, occur multiple times currently or re-occur again in the future! And I'm not just talking about some other earth with some other people on it. I'm talking about duplicate yous and mes that have had our exact same experiences, upbringings, failures and successes! It sounds absolutely crazy but the math says it is so.
Shall I take it one more step or have you had enough? Too bad, one more step. A truly infinite universe would have an infinite number of usses!! Why? Because whatever that probability of us actually occurring is, there is room in an infinite universe for that probability to occur an infinite number of times! (Although to be true, there would also have to be an infinite amount of matter which I've never heard anyone speak to. Yes, supernovas create all naturally occurring elements that are bigger than hydrogen but the supernovas themselves, like all stars, are created from hydrogen. Herego, an infinite hydrogen supply would be necessary.)
There you have it, an infinitesimally small tip of the infinite universe "iceberg." An infinite universe can never be proven, only disproven. But it sure is cool to wonder! I'd love to hear what you think.
Just Joe
NEXT WEEK: What is a Sport?
I was watching one of my nerdy science shows about the universe when I heard a thought-provoking theory; never mind that I thought I had my mind wrapped around the concept of "infinity" and now I'm back to square one.
Basically the show was about how the conventional paradigm (sorry, I've always wanted to use that word) of the universe is slowly beginning to give way to newer thoughts on a multi-verse, which suggests parallel existences. One theory was centered around electron activity. Electrons don't circle nuclei in patterns the way I was taught in school. Electrons appear and disappear seemingly randomly and can even appear in two places at once! Taking that into consideration some scientists speculate that when the electrons have disappeared, they are actually jumping to another plane of existence and creating a reality that is as real as we perceive ours to be. Sounds cool but, meh.
Another theory mentioned, which is the hottest topic in theoretical physics these days, is String Theory. I'm not really sure that I could explain my poor understanding of it in less than 10,000 words so consider that more reader homework.
There was a third theory though which, barring divine intervention and given certain assumptions, seems mathematically sound to me. I'd even say it's brilliant in its simplicity (once you grasp the concept of "infinity")! Okay, here goes: The assumption is our universe is infinite. So if you believe the universe was created without design after the Big Bang, then there was a certain probability that all of the particles, atoms and molecules involved in creating an environment that led to human existence and consciousness would actually happen. Make up any probability you like; 1 in 1 trillion, 1 in 10 X 10^trillion, 1 in a "flabbity-floo," 1 in a trillion "flabbity-floos" (or is it "flabbity-fli?"). The fact is whatever the probability is, it's less than infinity. And in fact, infinity is infinitely larger than whatever the probability is/was! What does that mean? That means however incredibly rare or impossible our existence seems, it's actually quite likely to have occurred previously, occur multiple times currently or re-occur again in the future! And I'm not just talking about some other earth with some other people on it. I'm talking about duplicate yous and mes that have had our exact same experiences, upbringings, failures and successes! It sounds absolutely crazy but the math says it is so.
Shall I take it one more step or have you had enough? Too bad, one more step. A truly infinite universe would have an infinite number of usses!! Why? Because whatever that probability of us actually occurring is, there is room in an infinite universe for that probability to occur an infinite number of times! (Although to be true, there would also have to be an infinite amount of matter which I've never heard anyone speak to. Yes, supernovas create all naturally occurring elements that are bigger than hydrogen but the supernovas themselves, like all stars, are created from hydrogen. Herego, an infinite hydrogen supply would be necessary.)
There you have it, an infinitesimally small tip of the infinite universe "iceberg." An infinite universe can never be proven, only disproven. But it sure is cool to wonder! I'd love to hear what you think.
Just Joe
NEXT WEEK: What is a Sport?
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
12 Monkeys
I finally saw the movie 12 Monkeys. And it only took 16 years! I think it was a pretty good movie, well I mostly enjoyed it anyway. Who doesn't love a good social awareness movie mixed in with some time travel/sci-fi?
Anyway, I thought it was pretty funny that in the movie one of Bruce Willis' lines is "All I see are dead people." This was right after he killed two homeless dudes. But the funny part about it of course is that Willis was in the movie The Sixth Sense in which the now famous line "I see dead people" was uttered TO Willis by Haley Joel Osmont. I know, I know, nothing earth shattering but a funny coincidence nonetheless.
Just Joe
Anyway, I thought it was pretty funny that in the movie one of Bruce Willis' lines is "All I see are dead people." This was right after he killed two homeless dudes. But the funny part about it of course is that Willis was in the movie The Sixth Sense in which the now famous line "I see dead people" was uttered TO Willis by Haley Joel Osmont. I know, I know, nothing earth shattering but a funny coincidence nonetheless.
Just Joe
Sunday, June 12, 2011
The Wave... of American Flavors
My favorite female cousin, Natalie, started a Disney blog called Project WDW. A bigger Disney nut/historian you will not find; from Walt's original plans to architecture to lost ideas, she loves it all! So I was honored when she asked me to contribute an article to her vision. I humbly asked if I could write about my favorite thing... food! Luckily she said "yes," so I reviewed my favorite restaurant, The Wave:
Tucked in the corner of Disney’s Contemporary Resort’s lobby since 2008, The Wave… of American Flavors has, in a few short years, established a reputation for serving fresh, creative and healthy meals that are packed with flavor.
Tucked in the corner of Disney’s Contemporary Resort’s lobby since 2008, The Wave… of American Flavors has, in a few short years, established a reputation for serving fresh, creative and healthy meals that are packed with flavor.
Upon approaching the reception area for the restaurant, one must first walk down an entrance ramp that is lined on the right side with lit, semicircular adornments that reach overhead giving the whimsical illusion of riding into a crashing wave’s barrel. The cast members who greet you at the end of “the barrel” are, like most cast members around WDW, very friendly and accommodating. (Being in a wheelchair, I often have special needs or requests that have been fulfilled every time.)
Behind the wall of the reception area is a lovely bar that feels modern but very warm because of the wooden floors, chairs and bar top. Dozens of small lights dot the ceiling in the barroom which gives an outdoor, starry feel to the area. Continuing into the dining room, dimmed but sufficient lighting along with all of the brown and orange color tones in the carpet and tapestries keep the warmth throughout the entire restaurant. Tables are spaced nicely allowing for nice walking aisles. I like the look of the chairs that have three vertical wavy lines as back support. I’ve been told the chairs are comfortable so it’s neat to see the wave theme continue. Also keeping within the theme are wavy metallic pieces of artwork on the ceiling.
Now for the nitty-gritty; the food! My last visit to The Wave happened to be for lunch. For my entrée I ordered “Today’s Sustainable Fish [Striped Bass] with Edamame Stew and Cilantro Chutney.” My first impression of the dish when it arrived was “Wow! It’s so colorful!” The striped bass was served in the middle of a white plate on a bed of lime-green edamame (soy beans) and yellow corn with the colorful chutney topping the fish. Surrounding the food was a light moat of deliciousness that had the consistency of a consommé. The fork-tender bass had a beautiful, medium brown sear with bits of white flesh visible through its crispy striations. The fish was so light it practically melted on my tongue. The edamame was nicely al dente and had an amazing sweet flavor which as it turns out came from the previously mentioned “moat of deliciousness.” The sweetness was so subtle that it taunted my sweet tooth far more than a stack of milk chocolate candy bars could ever do (and that’s a big statement coming from a chocoholic!). But don’t let me calling it “sweet” give the wrong impression; this is definitely a savory dish. After lapping up the last bits, I moved on to dessert.
Luckily I was there with two other people so I was able to sample from three different desserts! The desserts we chose were under the “Sweet Temptations” part of the dessert menu. In this section, each dessert is actually a taster size of three different preparations. The “Creamy Indulgence” dessert included New York New York
I've been to The Wave between five and seven times total now. I've been for breakfast, lunch and dinner -- though not on the same day -- and I have yet to be disappointed. Having only recently been introduced to the joys of fresh and organic foods, I was thrilled to have made the acquaintance of golden beets, edamame, pork tenderloin and the best grits I've ever had! (If you're on the fence about grits or if you've recently considered your first attempt at eating grits, this long time grit eater highly recommends making these your first.)
In fact the only negative I could see in my trips to The Wave were the cumbersome looking and uncomfortable looking cast member uniforms (white, long-sleeve, collared shirt; orange-brown colored vest; light colored khaki pants; white, waist-tied apron)! But I can hardly deduct points since I wasn't forced, or even asked, to wear the uniform.
Being my very first restaurant review, I have not decided on a permanent rating scale but for now suffice it to say that The Wave... of American Flavors receives my highest rating, 5 Remys out of 5!
(Apologies for the lack of photos. They'll be added later.)
Just Joe
NEXT WEEK: Infinity
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Still the Team I Remember
Last year, after over 26 years of loyal Cubs worship, I gave up. It was just a few weeks into the 2010 season and I just couldn't take the frustration of watching a WAY overpaid -- even by baseball standards -- WAY underachieving team any longer.
This past weekend the Cubs played two extra inning games against the St. Louis Cardinals. With 2 outs and bases empty in the bottom of the 12th inning of the first game, Cardinals all-world first baseman Albert Pujols (who'd already homered once in the game) came to bat. In previous years it would be a "no-brainer" decision: walk Pujols and face whomever may be next. With Pujols' numbers down a bit this year and with .329 hitting Lance Berkman on deck, the Cubs decided to pitch to Pujols. Jeff Samardzija did well to only nibble at the plate and it was no surprise when his 2-1 slider looked like it was heading for the dirt. Knowing Pujols' talent -- and knowing Cubs history moreso -- it was even less of a surprise when Pujols dropped his bathead on the low slider and drove it out of the park to win the game, 5-4.
The very next day, Cubs pitcher Carlos Marmol was on for the one-run save in the bottom of the 9th. Back when I used to watch, Marmol was notorious for refusing to establish his fastball and instead, throwing slider after slider after slider. So with a runner on 1st and a full count to former Cub Ryan Theriot, I had giggle fits watching Theriot loop a hanging slider down the left field line for an RBI double. Then with the score still tied, guess who led off the bottom of the 10th for the Cardinals. Did you guess "Albert Pujols?" See, you're already thinking like a Cubs fan! As a Cubs fan, you're happy to know Marmol was no longer pitching but the bad news is the Cubs are still the Cubs. With Pujols leading off this time, the intentional walk strategy takes different factors into consideration, mainly "do you want to put the game winning run on base with no outs?" The Cubs again decided to pitch to Albert. This time instead of Pujols hitting a good pitcher's pitch out of the park, he took a hanging fastball from Rodrigo Lopez and deposited it in the center field bleachers to beat the Cubs again!
Oh, Chicago Cubs, you are incorrigible.
But gone were the days of wanting to punch a wall. Instead I took great pleasure in knowing I'm no longer emotionally invested in this mockery. Furthermore, I've found that not only do I not root for the Cubs but I actually root against them! And upon further reflection, I'm lucky it was only 26+ years of fandom when their World Series drought will be 103 years in October.
Just Joe
This past weekend the Cubs played two extra inning games against the St. Louis Cardinals. With 2 outs and bases empty in the bottom of the 12th inning of the first game, Cardinals all-world first baseman Albert Pujols (who'd already homered once in the game) came to bat. In previous years it would be a "no-brainer" decision: walk Pujols and face whomever may be next. With Pujols' numbers down a bit this year and with .329 hitting Lance Berkman on deck, the Cubs decided to pitch to Pujols. Jeff Samardzija did well to only nibble at the plate and it was no surprise when his 2-1 slider looked like it was heading for the dirt. Knowing Pujols' talent -- and knowing Cubs history moreso -- it was even less of a surprise when Pujols dropped his bathead on the low slider and drove it out of the park to win the game, 5-4.
The very next day, Cubs pitcher Carlos Marmol was on for the one-run save in the bottom of the 9th. Back when I used to watch, Marmol was notorious for refusing to establish his fastball and instead, throwing slider after slider after slider. So with a runner on 1st and a full count to former Cub Ryan Theriot, I had giggle fits watching Theriot loop a hanging slider down the left field line for an RBI double. Then with the score still tied, guess who led off the bottom of the 10th for the Cardinals. Did you guess "Albert Pujols?" See, you're already thinking like a Cubs fan! As a Cubs fan, you're happy to know Marmol was no longer pitching but the bad news is the Cubs are still the Cubs. With Pujols leading off this time, the intentional walk strategy takes different factors into consideration, mainly "do you want to put the game winning run on base with no outs?" The Cubs again decided to pitch to Albert. This time instead of Pujols hitting a good pitcher's pitch out of the park, he took a hanging fastball from Rodrigo Lopez and deposited it in the center field bleachers to beat the Cubs again!
Oh, Chicago Cubs, you are incorrigible.
But gone were the days of wanting to punch a wall. Instead I took great pleasure in knowing I'm no longer emotionally invested in this mockery. Furthermore, I've found that not only do I not root for the Cubs but I actually root against them! And upon further reflection, I'm lucky it was only 26+ years of fandom when their World Series drought will be 103 years in October.
Just Joe
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Art Imitating Life?
The State of Florida vs. Casey Anthony trial began two weeks ago. It's a case of a mother who allegedly* murdered her own two-year-old daughter. My mom has taken an interest in the trial which is being televised. I guess you can "take the woman out of law but..." Anyway, I was watching a bit of the trial coverage with her and something really struck me. Lawyers aren't nearly as articulate and well calculated as they are in TV and movies! A real newsflash, right?
Obviously I realize that scripted, perfectly timed and well acted scenes could never actually happen in a courtroom but one of the defense attorneys for Casey Anthony stepped up to the podium to cross examine a State's witness and his very first question went something like this: "What, um --? When, uh --? Where are you from?" Now I can understand if you're 15, 10 or even just a few questions into the cross-examination and you're thinking of questions on the fly but come on, the very first question?! I could swear I was watching Austin Pendleton as defense attorney John Gibbons (Joe Pesci's/Vincent Gambini's comically stuttering co-counsel in the movie "My Cousin Vinny") in action!
But I did love it when another of the defense attorneys was completely outsmarted and outclassed by a witness. After the witness testified to Casey Anthony's demeanor, the defense attorney stormed up to the podium and aggressively stated "You have no idea how that child died!" The witness chuckled -- maybe even chortled -- at the statement and said something like "What do you want me to say to that? That's not a question." Having grown up in the 80s the three words that came to mind were "Burn! Shame! Cut down!" The attorney was just a little more humble but clearly perturbed. He dialed it down half a notch and asked "Do you know how the child died?" Classic! That's not even Law 101, that's high school debate class, Day 1! Pardon while I wipe my tears...
It reminded me of a time I had the unfortunate experience of taking part in a deposition. I didn't outsmart or outclass anyone but during a deposition for my own car accident I was asked by the "bad guy" attorney, "How much stuff did you have in your car?" I thought to myself for a couple of seconds because the question had stumped me, sort of. Obviously I knew approximately how much stuff I had in my car but I had to ask in return, "How do you want me to quantify that?" (Luckily I fought the urge to be a smart alec and continue my question with "number of items, total weight, total mass, by volume?") The attorney looked puzzled for a brief moment then looked at his notepad, grinned and said, "Good question." Hooray validation! Li'l ol' me asked an attorney a good question!
Just Joe
* Used for liability purposes only
NEXT WEEK: The Wave... of American Flavors
Obviously I realize that scripted, perfectly timed and well acted scenes could never actually happen in a courtroom but one of the defense attorneys for Casey Anthony stepped up to the podium to cross examine a State's witness and his very first question went something like this: "What, um --? When, uh --? Where are you from?" Now I can understand if you're 15, 10 or even just a few questions into the cross-examination and you're thinking of questions on the fly but come on, the very first question?! I could swear I was watching Austin Pendleton as defense attorney John Gibbons (Joe Pesci's/Vincent Gambini's comically stuttering co-counsel in the movie "My Cousin Vinny") in action!
But I did love it when another of the defense attorneys was completely outsmarted and outclassed by a witness. After the witness testified to Casey Anthony's demeanor, the defense attorney stormed up to the podium and aggressively stated "You have no idea how that child died!" The witness chuckled -- maybe even chortled -- at the statement and said something like "What do you want me to say to that? That's not a question." Having grown up in the 80s the three words that came to mind were "Burn! Shame! Cut down!" The attorney was just a little more humble but clearly perturbed. He dialed it down half a notch and asked "Do you know how the child died?" Classic! That's not even Law 101, that's high school debate class, Day 1! Pardon while I wipe my tears...
It reminded me of a time I had the unfortunate experience of taking part in a deposition. I didn't outsmart or outclass anyone but during a deposition for my own car accident I was asked by the "bad guy" attorney, "How much stuff did you have in your car?" I thought to myself for a couple of seconds because the question had stumped me, sort of. Obviously I knew approximately how much stuff I had in my car but I had to ask in return, "How do you want me to quantify that?" (Luckily I fought the urge to be a smart alec and continue my question with "number of items, total weight, total mass, by volume?") The attorney looked puzzled for a brief moment then looked at his notepad, grinned and said, "Good question." Hooray validation! Li'l ol' me asked an attorney a good question!
Just Joe
* Used for liability purposes only
NEXT WEEK: The Wave... of American Flavors
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Change, Anyone?
In a game on May 25, San Francisco Giants catcher Buster Posey was run over in a home plate collision with Florida Marlins centerfielder Scott Cousins. It happened in the 12th inning of a game in which the Marlins had blown a four-run lead in the ninth inning but Cousins' run was the go ahead and game winning run. Unfortunately, the collision was so violent that Posey's fibula was broken and several ankle tendons strained leading to the prognosis that Posey is likely to miss the rest of the season. Every reaction I've heard, professionals or not, is that the play was clean. And as much as I hate to defend a Marlins player, I agree 100%. What surprised me was the sudden outcry for banning or somehow regulating collisions at home plate.
I don't mean to sound like an old-time purist, though maybe I am, but for as long as baseball has been played there have been home plate collisions. The basic rule is "if you're blocking home plate prepare for a collision." There doesn't need to be any rules or mandates about avoiding contact on close plays at the plate. It's really quite simple: 1) if you are the runner and don't want to have a collision, pull up or slide. 2) if you are the catcher and don't want to have a collision, don't block home plate. Catch the ball in front of home plate and try to swipe tag or even jump into the baseline once the ball -- and your self -- is secure. It's a question of machismo versus common sense. Thrown baseballs travel faster than baseballs being carried. So catchers try to maximize air time by catching a thrown ball as late as possible by straddling home plate. This may put a catcher in harm's way, but it's something a catcher signs up for as far back as Little League.
My questions are: What if it were not a star player but a reserve player on a last-place team? Would there still be the same outcry? Why now? Pete Rose infamously destroyed Ray Fosse in a home plate collision while scoring the winning run in the 1970 All-Star game. That's right, a separated shoulder for blocking the plate in an exhibition game. No rules were changed then. (Urban legend has it that the collision ruined Fosse's career but I found this interesting, Why Pete Rose Didn't Ruin Ray Fosse's Career. There's also a lot more post collision Fosse injury reports on Wikipedia... but I have to draw the line somewhere, don't I?) So why try to change the rule now?
Just Joe
I don't mean to sound like an old-time purist, though maybe I am, but for as long as baseball has been played there have been home plate collisions. The basic rule is "if you're blocking home plate prepare for a collision." There doesn't need to be any rules or mandates about avoiding contact on close plays at the plate. It's really quite simple: 1) if you are the runner and don't want to have a collision, pull up or slide. 2) if you are the catcher and don't want to have a collision, don't block home plate. Catch the ball in front of home plate and try to swipe tag or even jump into the baseline once the ball -- and your self -- is secure. It's a question of machismo versus common sense. Thrown baseballs travel faster than baseballs being carried. So catchers try to maximize air time by catching a thrown ball as late as possible by straddling home plate. This may put a catcher in harm's way, but it's something a catcher signs up for as far back as Little League.
My questions are: What if it were not a star player but a reserve player on a last-place team? Would there still be the same outcry? Why now? Pete Rose infamously destroyed Ray Fosse in a home plate collision while scoring the winning run in the 1970 All-Star game. That's right, a separated shoulder for blocking the plate in an exhibition game. No rules were changed then. (Urban legend has it that the collision ruined Fosse's career but I found this interesting, Why Pete Rose Didn't Ruin Ray Fosse's Career. There's also a lot more post collision Fosse injury reports on Wikipedia... but I have to draw the line somewhere, don't I?) So why try to change the rule now?
Just Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)