Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
I agree that is what it means to you, but that is not what it means.
NFHS has been following the 2004 ASA bat performance standard, not the ASA definition of what is legal for Championship Play. ASA provides several wiggle loop holes around the 2004 BPS that NFHS does not allow.
|
Without all the longwinded efforts at re-explaining, I simply do not agree.
1) ASA requires all bats in championship play to meet the ASA 2004 bat standard.
2) ASA tells you that if a bat has the 2000 cert and is
NOT on the nonapproved list it is legal for championship play.
3) That tells me that if (2) is true, that bat meets the ASA 2004 bat standard.
4) NFHS requires all bats to meet the ASA 2004 bat standard.
5) That tells me that (3) is still true.
The simple difference between NFHS and ASA is that ASA does still allow judgment of bats that pre-exist any bat standard; NFHS does not.
The MS ruling does not serve to clarify your position; it simply restates the same wording that has been used since July, 2003. No change in wording, and no change in process, since she certainly would not wish to announce to all the states that have adopted an alternate method that their method is superfluous and redundant. So, restate the same old same old.
Finally, I repeat and renew my challenge from the NFHS website. I challenge any one umpire, from anywhere in the USA, to name even one bat model that has the 2000 cert, yet does not appear on either the approved bat list nor the non-approved bat list. WMB "assumes" they exist; I challenge anyone to name one. You have been checking and pulling these bats in NFHS games for months, so surely someone can name one, right? The reason I say you won't find one? Because the manufacturers all signed a contract with ASA that requires them to either submit
ALL bats for testing, or to state which models would not be submitted for testing (and, therefore, added immediately to the non-approved bat list). In fact, several of the bats which were non-approved prior to the 2004 bat standard were then moved to the approved bat list; they were resubmitted (as required by the contract), and passed the newer testing standard.
Until that challenge is met, I "assume" that the process is as complete as is stated, and do not subject NFHS teams to redundant means of proving it. Nor will I continue to repost my position with the same responses to the same assumptions. Name me one bat that supports your position.