[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Irish

You made a crude remark, and I responded with the same. Now can we shake hands and continue?

I don't believe I made a crude remark, but an observation of what I believe I was reading. Then again, I don't see an answer to the question I asked.

Can we agree that ASA created a new bat performance standard to supercede the 2000 standard? Thus the 2000 standard is no longer valid?

I don't think it was as much a change in the standard than adjusting the target due to a change in the method the bats were tested.

Can we agree the the 2004 testing method to measure bat exit speed is different from the old (2000) way?

See previous statement

Can we agree that the reason for the change was that some bats that met the 2000 standard were too hot for ASA requirements, thus ASA had a new standard developed?

Not necessarily. As stated, I believe it was an adjustment in the specifications of the testing method that produced what is considered a more accurate number to judge a bat against the preconceived baseline (how's that for BS?). IOW, the previous testing method didn't even come close to demonstrating the actual results of contact between a bat and ball in game conditions. I'm not stating that the present method does give you an exact replication of game performance, but it the best that can be conducted in a controled environment.

Can any reasonable person assume that there exists some bats that met the 2000 standard, and thus carry the 2000 cert mark, but will not pass the 2004 standard?

Considering the legal ramifications and liability assumed, I wouldn't be so quick to agree to that statement.

Can we then assume that not every bat with a 2000 mark is legal?

Do you have specific knowledge that every 2000 bat that would not meet the 2004 standard was identified by ASA and added to the Non-Approved list? Thus - every single bat made since 2000 is on one list or the other?

Absolute? No, no one knows that including ASA. However, given the number of bats on the approved list, I would not doubt it and, if you prefer, I have no problem with a leap of faith that they are.

If that last statement is true

, then we can safely assume that every 2000 bat is legal unless it is on the Non-Approved list. Even so, everytime we find a 2000 bat we need to research the 50 bat non-approved list. I still find it better to simply reject the bat and let the coach prove it is on the approved list.

NFHS has been following the ASA bat standards for the past few years. To me, that basically means that if ASA states the bat is legal, then so should it be in NFHS.

Everyone seems to have a hair up their tail about the "lists" and personally, it seems like it is just a matter of someone endorsing a lazy way out of dealing with the bats. I don't like dealing with these things any more than the next umpire, but it is part of our job. And considering that in some areas working HS games is like stealing free money, I don't see any reason to short-cut the players because someone doesn't want to deal with a list.

Are you aware that out of the 765 bats on the approved list, 54.4% were added to the list prior to 2004? That is an awful lot of bats to have out there that don't meet the 2004 standard based solely on certification marks.

Considering the knowledge put into this process, I have little to no doubt that by comparing the results of the 2000 & 2004 testing methods and results, they are well aware of what bats meet the present standard and which don't. Given the time spent in court in the past, and ASA's heartless demonstration of the 2000(?) massacre of bats just prior to the nationals, I doubt ASA would intentionally place themselves in jeopardy for some older model bats.