Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
All ASA needs to do is make a simple declarative statement: "All bats with the 2000 mark have passed the 2004 BPS unless they are on the non-approved list." ASA has made no such claim.
|
They don't need to make any such claim just to satisfy an outside concern. It is NFHS which adopted the ASA standard, not the other way around.
Those with the 2000 mark haven't passed anything because they were not tested at the 2004 level. No one hear as stated they were tested, but that, they do meet the standard which ASA set for 2004.
If NFHS folks don't care for the way ASA handles it, maybe they need to get off the free ride and determine their own standards. Of course, that is not going to happen and it is probably better for the players that it doesn't.
Then again, if NFHS was so damned worried about the 2004 standards being met, they would just permit those bats with that certification mark. But, no, they are allowing bats that are on the list REGARDLESS of what standard they meet.
This brings me back to the reason. If they are permitting ALL bats on the list regardless of certification mark, why even bother with noting any requirement for either mark? This obviously indicates it is not a safety issue relating to the 2004 BPS. The only thing I can think of is to make the umpire's life easier.
