I don't like the article's explanation. From the reference point of the ground, the helmet wasn't kicked backward, but it was kicked back away from the relative position and velocity of the player at the time of the kick. If the player had continued at the same velocity the entire time, the helmet would have landed way behind him. To call it a "camera trick" is incorrect.
I don't like the article's explanation. From the reference point of the ground, the helmet wasn't kicked backward, but it was kicked back away from the relative position and velocity of the player at the time of the kick. If the player had continued at the same velocity the entire time, the helmet would have landed way behind him. To call it a "camera trick" is incorrect.
IMO, what made it look like the helmet moved opposite him is that his horizontal velocity was greater than the horizontal velocity of the helmet after it was kicked. Even with the camera movement, you can tell the helmet is moving forward relative to the ground.The camera moving made it look like the helmet moved opposite him.
They could've done it in the first series in Toronto. Guess they were afraid of getting plunked by beer bottles...I'm not a big fan of Joey Bats, but I thought it was Bush league (pun intended) for the Rangers to wait as long as they did to plunk him and have a guy called up from AA ball to do it.
They could've done it in the first series in Toronto. Guess they were afraid of getting plunked by beer bottles...
I'm not a big fan of Joey Bats, but I thought it was Bush league (pun intended) for the Rangers to wait as long as they did to plunk him and have a guy called up from AA ball to do it.